Summary: Ms C complained on behalf of her mother, Mrs D that the Care Provider failed to provide sufficient recompense for the poor care Mrs D received while resident at one of its care homes. We found the Care Provider accepted the fault caused distress to Mrs D and provided a suitable remedy in line with our guidance.

The complaint

1. Ms C complained on behalf of her mother Mrs D, that H I C A (the Care Provider) failed to provide sufficient recompense for the poor care Mrs D received while resident at one of its care homes. This caused Ms C and Mrs D significant distress and inconvenience.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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. If they have caused a significant injustice or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B, 34C and 34H(3 and 4) as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Ms C and the Care Provider as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Ms C and the Care Provider had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Ms C’s mother, Mrs D had been in a care home since 2022. Ms C visited her every day. Following a change of management at the home, Ms C felt there were staff shortages which affected the care. She said she regularly changed the bedsheets, cleaned the bathroom and emptied the bins. She said the bathroom was often a particular concern with used catheter tubes and bags left lying around. On one occasion Ms C said a carer refused to take Mrs D to the toilet because they were serving lunch and no-one else was available.
7. Ms C complained orally to the management to the Home in early 2024. On 21 February 2024 she met with the Care Provider to discuss her concerns. In the meantime the boiler had broken down during a cold spell. Some hot water and heating were restored due to a partial repair on 16 February 2024. But the problems still persisted. The boiler was not fully repaired until 6 March 2024. Mrs D developed a chest infection during this period.
8. The Care Provider wrote to Ms C following the meeting, outlining her concerns and the action taken:
• It would discuss with Mrs D her preferred frequency for a bath and increase it initially from once to three times a week.
• It agreed the standard of cleanliness was below expectation and Mrs D’s bin should have been emptied more regularly. The Care Provider sent out a message to all staff outlining the Care Provider’s expectations.
• The boiler breakdown was not good enough and was made worse by a lack of contingency planning. The Care Provider had now ordered enough heaters for all rooms.
• It also agreed that communication in general had not been as good as it should have and the Care Provider committed to working with staff to improve this. A senior manager will also be on site on a regular basis to discuss any concerns.
• It apologised for the problems and offered to hold another meeting in six weeks to discuss the situation again.
9. Ms C remained unhappy and moved Mrs D to another home in March 2024. She continued with the complaint after Mrs D had left. The Care Provider met online with Ms C on 1 May 2024 and then responded to the complaint on 10 May 2024. It noted that Ms C had raised a concern on 4 February 2024 about the standard of housekeeping. The manager had held a meeting with all staff on 8 February 2024 to remind them of expectations and standards. It had also advertised for a new staff role, head of housekeeping to ensure effective oversight of standards.
10. In terms of the care of Mrs D, it said it had checked the records and could find no evidence of catheters being reused but it apologised for the failure to dispose of them correctly causing distress to Ms C. In terms of the incident with one member of staff it said the manager had followed this matter up in accordance with the human resources processes and were satisfied it had been dealt with appropriately. It noted seven instances in January and February where the nursing call bell was not answered promptly. It apologised for this and said it would remind staff to ensure call bells were answered promptly and that the bells were left within easy reach of residents.
11. It apologised for the boiler breakdown and noted that residents had been offered £300 as a gesture of goodwill for the inconvenience. It confirmed the final invoice for Mrs D’s care was correct.
12. Ms C continued to correspond with the Care Provider as she considered £300 was insufficient recompense. In July 2024 the Care Provider offered an additional £500. Ms C complained to us in September 2024.

Analysis

13. The Care Provider has accepted there were shortcomings in its housekeeping standards, responses to individual care bells, its communications with residents and time take to repair the boiler. It responded promptly to the concerns and took action to ensure improvements were made in both the short and longer term. It offered a follow-up meeting with Ms C even after Mrs D had left the home.
14. I consider Mrs D was caused distress and inconvenience by the staffing issues. I also consider she was caused significant distress due to the boiler breakdown during a cold spell. I cannot conclude she developed a chest infection as a result of the failings, but I accept it has caused uncertainty given the timing of the illness.
15. Our guidance on remedies sets out our approach to putting right injustice. We can ask the organisation to make a payment to symbolise and acknowledge the distress or difficulties the person has been put through because of what it did wrong. For distress we recommend a payment up to £500.
16. The Care Provider has already offered £800 to Ms C, which is in excess of our guidance and I am satisfied that, along with the apologies, it is a reasonable resolution to the complaint.

Back to top

Decision

17. I find fault causing injustice, but the Care Provider has already taken appropriate action to remedy the injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman