Residential care

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (19 005 067)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 19-Feb-2020

    Summary: Miss X complained the care home commissioned by the Council terminated her mother's respite care after only two weeks because it could not meet her needs. The Council was not at fault. The care home decided based on the initial information that it could meet Mrs F's needs. It reviewed this after an incident occurred and decided it could no longer meet her needs. However, the care home did not produce a care and support plan for Mrs F. The Council was at fault but there was no evidence this caused Mrs F an injustice. It agreed to remind the care home to complete care and support plans for all residents, in line with the regulations.

  • Derwent Residential Care Limited (19 006 569)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 19-Feb-2020

    Summary: The care provider was not at fault in deciding not to readmit the late Mrs X to a residential placement once her nursing needs were evident. It could have communicated at an earlier stage with her family about Mrs X's increasing needs. It has already apologised and taken action to review its systems, however, and those actions have remedied any injustice to Mrs X's family.

  • St. Philips Care Limited (19 004 371)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 17-Feb-2020

    Summary: There was some delay before Mrs X was assessed for NHS funding but that did not cause any injustice. The fee waiver already offered by the care provider is sufficient to remedy the inconvenience caused by the delay.

  • Kent County Council (19 001 507)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 13-Feb-2020

    Summary: Mrs C complains the Council did not properly investigate safeguarding concerns about Mr D. I have found no fault in the Council's actions. It followed safeguarding procedures and reached a reasoned decision. While it is clear Mr D had a marked deterioration in his health, I am unable to say that the Council did not take appropriate action or there was service failure by the Care Provider. The Council is however at fault for failing to deal with Mrs C's complaint properly and including irrelevant, uncorroborated information about Mrs C and Mr D in the safeguarding investigation.

  • Lancashire County Council (19 006 812)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 12-Feb-2020

    Summary: The Council was responsible for Mrs X's care and failed to ensure the right provision was in place for her to remain in the care home where she was settled. The Council apologises for the way in which Mrs X's placement ended and agrees a payment in acknowledgement that the unwanted move caused unnecessary distress.

  • Mr John Graham Haslam & Mrs Jennifer Mary Bailey (19 003 763)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 12-Feb-2020

    Summary: The care provider failed to provide safe and appropriate care which met Mrs X's needs. As a result she suffered pressure sores and a loss of dignity as well as delay in obtaining medical attention. The care provider will offer a payment to Mrs X in recognition of the distress caused by its failures.

  • Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (19 008 973)

    Statement Not upheld Residential care 12-Feb-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman has discontinued its investigation into poor care at Cherry Tree House care home. Mrs D's records have been destroyed in a flooding incident and an investigation is therefore impossible. The Home has agreed to pay Mrs D's daughter £400 in recognition of its failure to provide the records.

  • Coventry City Council (19 010 863)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 11-Feb-2020

    Summary: The Council failed to respond to Mrs X's concerns about the outcome of a safeguarding investigation into the care her late mother received at a care home. It also failed to respond to Mrs X's repeated correspondence about this.

  • Victoria Lodge (Select) Limited (19 005 885)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 10-Feb-2020

    Summary: Ms W complains Victoria Lodge failed to care properly for her father, resulting in two safeguarding enquiries which were upheld and her father having to move to another care home, and lost some of his possessions. There were failings by Victoria Lodge which left him without all the care he needed and could have put him at risk of harm. Victoria Lodge needs to apologise, confirm it has waived any outstanding fees and take action to improve its practices.

  • Gracewell Healthcare 3 Limited (19 000 193)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 07-Feb-2020

    Summary: Ms X complains her mother, Mrs Y did not receive the service or quality of care that she expected to receive and had paid for. There were failings in Gracewell of Bookham's care for Mrs Y which caused Mrs Y and Ms X an injustice. Gracewell of Bookham has made an appropriate offer to remedy this injustice.