Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Care Home provided poor care to her late grandfather, Mr Y and poorly communicated with his family. This is because we could not add to the Care Provider’s previous investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Care Home provided poor quality of care to her late grandfather, Mr Y and it poorly communicated with his family. She also said the Care Provider delayed responding to her complaint. Miss X said the matter caused her distress.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(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 Miss X and the Care Provider.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr Y had care needs and was living at the Care Home before he died. Miss X raised her concerns with the Care Provider about the care and communication in relation to her grandfather. She said:
• Mr Y’s room was not clean and tidy upon arrival. Records of the previous resident were present. It was also left in a poor state following his death;
• Mr Y was confined to his bed yet was able to access a pair of scissors which resulted in an injury. The Care Home also poorly communicated with the family following the injury; and
• staff failed to inform the family when Mr Y became acutely unwell. Staff were also not proactive in seeking medical advice and providing Mr Y with medication.
6. The Care Provider investigated Miss X’s concerns. In response, it said:
• Mr Y’s bedroom was not cleaned to expected standard when he arrived. The room was also in a poor state following his death. It said it had addressed the matter with the Care Home and improved its procedures such as introducing increased spot checks to prevent a recurrence of fault;
• the Care Home responded appropriately and promptly to Mr Y’s incident with the pair of scissors. It escalated the matter to the local safeguarding team, Mr Y’s General Practitioner as well as the mental health team. It removed any further risks and monitored Mr Y. However, the Care Provider recognised the Care Home was not aware of such risks to Mr Y upon admission and said it would improve its admission procedures to ensure it had such information. The Care Provider also accepted the Care Home had delayed informing Mr Y’s family following the incident and said it would address the matter with the team;
• the Care Home had been monitoring Mr Y and liaising with appropriate healthcare professionals however, it could have communicated better with Mr Y’s family when he became acutely unwell. It also accepted although it did seek medical advice and administered medication to Mr Y, this was only after his family had requested the Care Home to do so. The Care Provider said it would review its procedures and address the matter with the Care Home to prevent a recurrence of fault; and
• Miss X was present during Mr Y’s death and she was recorded as Mr Y’s Next of Kin and this was the reason why it did not inform other family of Mr Y’s death. However, it acknowledged it failed to meet the family’s expectations and said it would improve its communication.
7. The Care Provider apologised to Miss X for the distress the matter had caused her.
8. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because the Care Provider investigated her concerns, acknowledged it acted with fault and explained what improvements it would make to prevent a recurrence of faults. It also apologised to Miss X. This was appropriate and what we would expect it to do. We therefore could not add to its investigation.
9. I note Miss X also raised a concern about records of the previous resident being present in her grandfather’s room which questions whether the Care Home had breached data. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is a better body placed to consider such matters. It would be reasonable for Miss X to raise this concern with the ICO.
10. As we are not investigating the substantive matters Miss X complained of, we will not look into how the Care Provider managed her complaint. This is because it would not be a good use of public money to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we could not add to the Care Provider’s previous investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman