Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care during a short respite break at a care home. The Care Provider accepted some fault, apologised, offered £200, and gave staff training to improve future service. We are satisfied with its actions in response to the complaint, and it is unlikely we would achieve anything further.

The complaint

1. Ms B says the Care Provider failed to meet Ms C’s care and support needs during a respite break at Glenroyd residential care home. Ms B no longer gets the respite she needs as the experience has put her off using respite breaks. Ms B says the provider failed to give Ms C her medication, did not ensure Ms C drank enough to avoid her being dehydrated and constipated, and did not have Ms C ready when Ms B arrived to collect her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers. 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 the care provider, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

3. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Care Provider accepts failures with the communication during Ms C’s admission into the home. Some of Ms C’s medication was missing but the Care Provider failed to raise this with Ms B and therefore it was not given during Ms C’s stay. The Care Provider also missed an opportunity to manage Ms B’s expectations about what it would provide. Ms B wanted the Care Provider to put a preventative plaster between Ms C’s toes to stop them rubbing, whereas the Care Provider did not do this as there was no wound to treat.
7. There was a further communication failure on the day of Ms C’s departure. Ms B telephoned to say she would be collecting Ms C shortly after. The care home failed to ask whether Ms B wanted them to pack up Ms C’s belongings or if the family wanted to do it. So, when Ms B arrived, Ms C was not ready to go. Ms C had declined personal care that morning and the Care Provider had failed to offer it again before Ms C was leaving.
8. The Care Provider has accepted fault, spoken with relevant staff, and provided refresher training to improve future service. The Care Provider has apologised and offered £200 to acknowledge the impact of the fault.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because it is unlikely we would add to the Care Provider’s investigation or achieve any further outcome. We are satisfied with the Care Provider’s response to the complaint.
10. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates care providers in England. The CQC has found the care home requires improvement in several areas, so will be working with the care home to improve its service.
11. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman