Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the care provision to her late mother Ms Y and how the care provider dealt with her complaint. An investigation by us would not add to the care provider’s investigation, nor result in a different outcome. There is insufficient unremedied injustice to Miss X to warrant an investigation. We cannot achieve the negligence finding she seeks. We do not investigate care providers’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Miss X is Ms Y’s daughter. Ms Y was in a care home run by the care provider for several years until her death. Miss X complains the care provider:
1. gave Ms Y a gradually reducing standard of care culminating in neglect;
2. were obstructive and untruthful in dealing with her complaints.
2. Miss X says the poor care greatly diminished her mother’s quality of life when she needed most care. She says the matters complained of have led her to not being able to properly grieve because she has had to fight to get answers, apologies and acceptance of responsibility from the care provider.
3. Miss X wants the care provider to accept they neglected her mother, accept its wrongdoing and apologise for the poor care and the impact this in turn had on her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers and decide whether their actions have caused an injustice, or could have caused injustice, to the person making the complaint. I have used the term fault to describe such actions. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B and 34C)
5. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• the injustice we can remedy is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the care provider; or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B(8) and (9))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Miss X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The core issue in the complaint is the standard of care Ms Y received at the home prior to her death. There was a council safeguarding investigation regarding the most serious care issue, Ms Y’s pressure sores. The report could not precisely determine when they happened. The care provider accepts they should have assessed Ms Y before and after her hospital stay, which would have given more information on when the sores occurred and developed. But an investigation by us would not have different information available to it which has not already been considered by the safeguarding assessment and the care provider. It is unlikely an investigation by us could add to that done by the care provider. There is no different outcome an investigation into Ms Y’s care would now achieve here.
8. The care provider accepts there could have been better provision for Ms Y’s personal hygiene, use of cushions to help with pressure sores, her mobility, and other events around her care. But the main impact of these issues was on Ms Y. We focus our investigations on matters where there has been significant personal injustice but also where we can provide outcomes for recipients of the service. We cannot provide such outcomes where the resident has died. We will not investigate because we are unable to provide a remedy for the late Ms Y
9. We recognise Miss X has been caused understandable distress by the impacts on Ms Y and the circumstances surrounding her care placement near the end of her mother’s life. But the care provider has apologised where it has found its staff fell short in Ms Y’s care provision and communication issues. We realise Miss X considers the care provider has not accepted its provision to Ms X was below standard on all the specific issues for which she considers it was responsible. But there is insufficient significant injustice, which has not been remedied by the apologies the care provider has already given, to warrant us investigating here.
10. We also recognise Miss X wants us to make a finding that the care provider was negligent in its care of Ms Y. Negligence is a legal issue which can only be determined by a court. If Miss X wants a decision that the care provider was negligent, she would need to take this issue to court. That we cannot achieve this outcome for her is a further reason why we will not investigate.
11. Miss X complains about the care provider’s responses to her complaint, some of which she considered were wrong or obstructive. We do not investigate care providers’ complaint-handling processes in isolation where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because:
• investigation would not add to the care provider’s investigation nor result in a different outcome; and
• there is insufficient unremedied significant injustice to her to warrant an investigation; and
• we cannot achieve the negligence outcome she seeks; and
• we do not investigate care providers’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman