Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a respite stay for her husband Mr X at a care home run by the Care Provider, and how it responded to her complaint. It is unlikely an investigation would add to the Care Provider’s investigation or achieve a different outcome. There is insufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X or Mrs X to warrant an investigation. We do not investigate Care Providers’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X has Parkinson’s and dementia. Mrs X is his wife and sole carer. Mr X went to Sandhills Court care home for a respite stay in late summer 2024. During his stay, there was an incident when he became aggressive with staff. Mrs X sought a second respite stay for Mr X at the same care home in the autumn but the firm declined the request.
2. Mrs X complains the Care Provider:
1. has failed to clarify the events leading up to Mr X being aggressive;
2. had staff with insufficient skills to deal with the incident with Mr X;
3. failed to use information she provided pre-admission which set out Mr X’s needs and adaptations;
4. provided inaccurate, incomplete and fabricated responses to her complaint.
3. Mrs X says she felt belittled and called a liar by the Care Provider’s responses to the complaint.

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:

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

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

6. The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 set out the fundamental standards that registered care providers must achieve. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has guidance on how to meet the fundamental standards.
7. The CQC is the statutory regulator of care services. It keeps a register of care providers that meet the fundamental standards of care, inspects care services, and reports its findings. It can also enforce against breaches of fundamental care standards and prosecute offences.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information from Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. At the core of Mrs X’s complaint is a disagreement about what happened at the home when Mr X was aggressive with staff. Mrs X suspects staff forced medication on Mr X, causing him to respond aggressively, which the Care Provider disputes. In response to Mrs X’s complaint, the Care Provider looked at records and documents relating to Mr X’s respite stay, considered information from Mrs X and interviewed staff involved in the incident. We recognise Mrs X wants to determine what happened during the incident and when. An investigation by us would not achieve this. There is no additional information available to an investigation by us which would enable such an outcome. We could not say the event was handled with insufficient skill by staff where it cannot be determined what led to the event and what occurred. We will not investigate where it is unlikely we could add to the investigation conducted by Care Provider or achieve a different outcome. That is the case here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
10. The Care Provider has accepted it did not use a document Mrs X provided about Mr X’s daily activities and needs when assessing him for the placement. But the home not using the document did not affect Mr X’s care provision to the extent that it caused Mrs X to complain about that provision at the time, nor did the provision prevent her seeking a further respite stay for Mr X at the same home. That Mrs X sought a further respite for Mr X at the same home indicates she had no or minimal concerns about the care home’s service to Mr X, nor about any impacts on him of events during his earlier respite, including the firm not using her document. There is insufficient evidence of a significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by the matters complained of here to warrant an investigation.
11. Mrs X’s own claimed injustice stems from the Care Provider’s responses to her complaint. She considers the Care Provider’s conclusions about the incident, and its initial denial about receiving the document she provided about Mr X’s daily activities and needs, was belittling and amounted to it accusing her of lying. The Care Provider apologised for the error with the document, reached the conclusions it considered it could on the evidence before it, and stated its responses had not intend to imply Mrs X was lying. We recognise Mrs X was caused offence by these complaint-handling issues, but this is an insufficient significant personal injustice to her to justify us investigating.
12. Furthermore, we do not investigate care firms’ 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.
13. The CQC’s fundamental standard on good governance requires providers to maintain accurate, complete and detailed records for each service user and the management of its care service. In its complaint responses, the Care Provider accepts some care records were not made contemporaneously and that some contacts with Mrs X were not recorded. As this raises a standards issue, we will share this decision with the CQC under our information-sharing agreement.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• it is unlikely an investigation would add to the Care Provider’s investigation or achieve a different outcome; and
• there is insufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X or Mrs X to warrant us investigating; and
• we do not investigate firms’ complaint-handling processes where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman