Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider’s management of Mrs Y’s medication. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice caused by any fault in its actions, and in any event it is unlikely we could achieve a different or more meaningful outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Care Provider ran out of his mother’s (Mrs Y’s) medication, failed to get a repeat prescription and failed to administer medication to Mrs Y for three days. He said this constituted neglect and the care was not to the standard being paid for. Mr X complained there was also high staff turnover at the care home. He said the Care Provider has apologised, but he wanted it to also pay compensation due to Mrs Y paying for a service she had not received.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Medication

5. We will not normally investigate a complaint unless there is good reason to believe that the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the service provider. This means that we will normally only investigate a complaint where:
• the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by the service provider, or
• there are continuous and ongoing instances of a lower level injustice that remain unresolved over a long period of time.
6. There is insufficient evidence of injustice caused to Mrs Y by the matters Mr X raises. The complaints correspondence indicates the GP was not concerned when Mrs Y missed her medication for three days, as she appeared well. There is no allegation of harm caused to Mrs Y by issues with running out of her medication.
7. In any event, the Care Provider has taken steps to review how it manages medication stock levels and how it communicates with family members around these issues. Investigation by us could not achieve a different or more meaningful outcome. We cannot recommend a financial remedy where any fault has not caused an injustice.

Staff turnover

8. Mr X’s complaint about staff turnover also did not indicate any specific detriment to Mrs Y. We will not investigate this any further as there is insufficient evidence of any injustice.

Other matters Mr X complained to the Care Provider about

9. While Mr X’s complaint to us focused upon the above matters, I have considered the complaints correspondence to decide whether there were any other matters that, in combination with the above areas, might provide justification for us to further investigate Mrs Y’s case.
10. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Care Provider in some of these areas, including Mrs Y’s oral care, continence care and the Care Provider’s decision to issue notice to Mrs Y due to her needs having increased.
11. There is insufficient evidence of injustice caused by any fault in other areas, including an incorrect date included in a letter and Mrs Y having been observed wearing another resident’s slippers.
12. In any event, we could not achieve anything of value by investigating these other areas of complaint. The Care Provider took appropriate action. It has apologised to recognise distress caused by wording it used in a letter. It held refresher training for its staff and reminded them about the importance of compassionate communication.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman