Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the standard of care in a care home. We could not add to the investigations already carried out, nor could we achieve a more meaningful outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the standard of respite care the Care Provider delivered to her husband (Mr X) in early 2025. She said the care staff did not monitor Mr X properly and did not notice his decline or seek medical assistance when necessary. She said Mr X died in hospital, and the family have suffered significant grief. She wanted answers and for the Care Provider to be held accountable.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X had a short period of respite in a care home in early 2025. He was admitted to hospital after three weeks. He died in hospital after a further six weeks.
6. Mrs X complained to the Care Provider as she believed Mr X’s care had been poor, and she felt had the carers acted more swiftly Mr X may not have died.
7. The Care Provider investigated Mrs X’s concerns. It explained why Mr X was not supervised as closely as Mrs X had believed, due to this causing him distress. It explained the information it had recorded in his care plans indicated he was mostly independent with washing, dressing and eating, and that he could become frustrated if care staff intervened. It explained the records it held showed Mr X’s presentation fluctuated significantly in the week leading up to his hospitalisation. It explained the steps it took to seek medical intervention when it recognised Mr X had deteriorated.
8. The Care Provider explained the local authority had also carried out enquiries and concluded there was no evidence of neglect or poor professional practice. The local authority had said the Care Provider sought appropriate medical attention as soon as it noticed Mr X was unwell, and his death was unrelated to the original reason for his admission six weeks earlier.
9. We cannot determine the cause of Mr X’s death or say the Care Provider was responsible for it. If we investigated, it is unlikely we could provide more information than has already been provided. While Mrs X was not satisfied with the outcome of the Care Provider’s and local authority’s investigations, further investigation by us would not achieve the accountability Mrs X seeks.
10. Mrs X stated she did not seek a financial payment from complaining. However, for the avoidance of doubt we also could not achieve anything more meaningful in this respect if we investigated. The Care Provider offered a refund of £1,810 care charges, which it said was a gesture of goodwill. We could not recommend a more significant financial remedy if we did investigate the matter.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we could not add to the investigations already carried out, nor could we achieve a more meaningful outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman