Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider’s failure to properly respond to an incident involving Mr X and another resident. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to lead to a worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms Q complains the Care Provider failed to properly respond when Mr X was involved in an incident involving another resident. She also complains the Care Provider delayed informing her about the incident and did not provide him with adequate medical assistance.

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 no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 Ms Q and the Care Provider.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms Q’s father Mr X was admitted to the Care Provider’s care home for three days. Whilst he was there another resident attacked him and he sustained injuries as a result.
6. Ms Q complained the Care Provider failed to notify her about the incident and did not provide her father with appropriate medical assistance. She also said it did not keep proper record of Mr X’s injuries.
7. The Care Provider apologised and explained it did not immediately contact Ms Q due to needing to settle both residents. It assessed Mr X and did not find he had suffered significant injuries requiring medical attention. The Care Provider said it did not have evidence of the additional injuries she said Mr X had suffered but it issued a reminder to staff about the importance of keeping accurate records. The Care Provider also waived the outstanding fees due for Mr X’s stay at the home.
8. Ms Q remains unhappy with the situation and the Care Provider’s response. The Care Provider has apologised, explained what happened and taken practical steps to address what happened, which is what we would expect it to do. It is not possible to establish the cause for the discrepancies in Ms Q’s assessment of Mr X’s injuries and the Care Provider’s as Mr X is no longer a resident at the home. Further investigation into this matter is unlikely to achieve anything meaningful for Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint because an investigation into this matter is unlikely to result in a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman