Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about Mr Z’s care home neglecting him during his stay. This is because an investigation is not likely to reach any different findings or outcomes.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains Mr Z’s care home neglected him during his stay. She says this led to a decline in his mobility.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr Z was resident of a care home between August 2023 and March 2024. Mrs X complains the care home did not provide adequate care and support to Mr Z. In particularly, she complained:
• Staff failed to properly document or act on Mr Z’s reports of numbness in his right foot.
• Staff unreasonably tried to prevent Mr Z from staying with Mrs X despite the social worker having agreed to it.
• Staff failed to provide clear information or instructions about Mr Z’s medication regime for when he went to stay with Mrs X.
• Staff was aggressive and confrontation with Mrs X, demanding she bring Mr Z back to the care home.
• Staff failed to respond to Mr Z’s buzzer in a timely manner after he fell.
• Staff refused to allow Mrs X to enter the care home in February 2024.
• Staff failed to properly document a fall, and the injuries sustained.
6. In its complaint response, the Council noted the following:
• Records showed Mr Z was visited by a district nurse which confirmed Mr Z had complained about right leg numbness. Records also showed that Mr Z continued to receive visits from health professionals and that he also saw his GP about the issue in November 2023.
• Records showed there was some hesitancy from the care home to agree for Mr Z to stay overnight with Mrs X. However, Mr Z had capacity to decide where he wanted to stay. The Council was satisfied the care home took appropriate steps to verify the information Mrs X provided, and once Mr Z’s wishes were confirmed, supported him to prepare for the visit.
• Records showed Mr Z told staff Mrs X would support him to administer his medication. No other records available to show what else was discussed. The Council noted that if Mrs X required clarification over the medication, she could have obtained it from the care home at the time.
• The care home did not have any record of a conversation requesting Mrs Z to bring Mr Z home.
• A response time of 10 minutes was reasonable to respond to Mr Z’s buzzer after he fell. Says a record was made later, but that this a record of when staff first attended the buzzer, but of when staff had the first opportunity to make a note of the incident.
• Accepts the care home refused to allow Mrs X to enter the care home in February 2024.
• Says Mr Z’s fall was documented appropriately, and that staff had assessed Mr Z following the fall. Says there was no recorded injury following the fall.
7. An investigation is not proportionate because an investigation is not likely to reach any different findings or outcomes due to the case records that are likely to be available.
8. Further, Mrs X says the poor care by the care home led to Mr Z’s mobility declining. However, it is unlikely we would be able to make this finding, especially as most of the matters complained about do not directly relate to Mr Z’s mobility.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because an investigation is not likely to reach any different findings or outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman