Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about inaccuracies and omissions contained in a safeguarding report completed in 2019 regarding her mother, Mrs C. This is because we could not add to the Council’s responses or make a different finding even if we investigated. The Council has apologised for its failings and explained what it has done to minimise the risk of similar occurrences happening again, we could achieve no more than this.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained about the accuracy of the information contained in safeguarding documents completed by the Council in 2019 and the time it has taken the Council to amend documents and respond to her complaints. Mrs B says records should be accurate and other people should not have to go through the same experience they, as a family have.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. The complainant had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs B is concerned the safeguarding investigation into bruising found on Mrs C’s sacrum in October 2019 was not properly considered and safeguarding records do not reflect what actually happened. Mrs B complained about the time it took the Council to investigate her concerns and the Council’s responses to her complaints. Mrs B says safeguarding documents say the Care Provider called the GP when this is not correct, and documents record wrong medical information.
7. The Council says:

While I appreciate your concern that it should be clarified if the care home did not contact the GP, the safeguarding documentation is contained within a separate work step on our electronic recording system (Mosaic) and will not influence in any way ongoing work with your mother. In addition, [the Social Worker] has acknowledged your views on this matter in her letter of apology which has been attached as an addendum to your mother’s social care records.

8. The Council has explained the records cannot be amended because the system does not allow for retrospective amendments. It also acknowledged there were inaccuracies regarding wrong dates entered onto the system and says it will remind staff of the importance of accurate recordings and proof reading. The Council says it will attach an addendum apologising for the poor communication which reflects Mrs B’s views about who contacted the GP. If Mrs B wants a more detailed record she can ask the Council to include a record of her own views of the inaccuracies contained in the safeguarding documents. We could not achieve any more than this even if we investigated.
9. The Council says the GP who saw Mrs C in October 2019 determined the likely cause of the bruising was due to a fall she had a few days earlier and closed its safeguarding investigation into matters. However, it said it would follow up concerns via Risk Management Response (RMR) reviews. Mrs B complained she had not been kept updated or informed of the outcomes of ongoing RMR reviews as she was advised she would.
10. The Council says following its decision not to proceed to Case Conference and close the safeguarding investigation in December 2019, an RMR review took place in January 2020. It acknowledged the wording on the Social Worker’s letter could have made it clearer what would happen and apologised for the confusion. It confirmed the RMR and correlated plan identified actions for both the Care Provider and the Council’s Quality Performance Officer and stated the Council’s Provider Management and Market Development Team will continue to monitor the care home to ensure all recommendations identified were completed.
11. The Council has acknowledged and apologised for its failings in this case and explained what it has done to minimise the risk of a similar occurrence. It has apologised for the length of time taken to address Mrs B’s complaints and says it has reminded staff through Team meetings of the need for prompt and detailed communication with officers between areas and the be accountable to ensure promised actions are completed. We could not add to this or make a different finding even if we investigated.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we could not add to the Council’s responses or make a different finding even if we investigated. The Council has apologised for its failings and explained what it has done to minimise the risk of similar occurrences happening again, we could achieve no more than this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman