Safeguarding


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (16 001 357)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 15-May-2017

    Summary: There is no fault with a nursing home's provision of food and drink, a CCG's case management or a Council's safeguarding investigation. There is some fault with the nursing home's management of the placement but it did not cause an injustice.

  • East Riding of Yorkshire Council (16 000 741)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 15-May-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsmen found fault in the way a care home assessed and cared for a resident's pressure area needs. It is not possible to say if this fault caused later pressure sores. However, the resident's daughter has been left with considerable uncertainty about this which is an injustice in itself. The Ombudsmen recommend the Home apologises, pays a financial remedy and takes action to prevent recurrences.

  • Somerset County Council (15 019 434)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 12-May-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsmen found a Trust and Council took appropriate action to address recommendations they made in a report in February 2014. In addition, the Ombudsmen found the Trust and Council acted without fault in the way they dealt with the complainant's related concerns.

  • Worcestershire County Council (15 019 277)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 12-May-2017

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council, BUPA and the CCG's failure to safeguard his wife in 2011 and 2012. The Council and CCG have commissioned two independent investigations and retrospective safeguarding investigations into Mr X's concerns. These reviews have identified faults for which the organisations have apologised. However, Mr X should be given more information about practical actions taken. The Council, BUPA and CCG have agreed to do this.

  • Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (16 003 479)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 12-May-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsmen have found a complainant did not provide sufficient information to a Care Home for a full investigation into her complaints to take place. However, the Ombudsmen have found a Council led safeguarding meeting identified areas of fault in the Care Home's actions. The Ombudsmen recommend the Care Home apologise to the complainant for the impact of these faults, and explain what steps have been taken to improve practices at the Care Home.

  • Lincolnshire County Council (17 000 286)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 11-May-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs C's complaint about the Council's decision not to record a finding of neglect in its safeguarding investigation. This is because there is not enough evidence of the Council's actions causing Mrs C a significant injustice to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

  • London Borough of Lambeth (16 017 397)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 11-May-2017

    Summary: I have discontinued the investigation into this complaint as the Council has not had an opportunity to investigate and reply to it.

  • London Borough of Enfield (16 016 072)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 08-May-2017

    Summary: The Council and the Trust failed to consider and record the complainants' right to challenge safeguarding allegations made about them during a safeguarding investigation. This was against natural justice. The Council and the Trust also failed to provide a vulnerable adult with an independent advocate despite agreeing this as a safeguarding outcome. The Council and the Trust have agreed to the Ombudsmen's recommendations that they apologise to the complainants and review their safeguarding procedures so lessons can be learnt.

  • Shropshire Council (16 019 194)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 04-May-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council in relation to the complainant's father. This is because his advocate and the person holding Power of Attorney are more appropriate to represent his wishes.

  • Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (16 008 852)

    Statement Upheld Safeguarding 03-May-2017

    Summary: The Council delayed in clarifying that another council funded Mrs X's care in the care home, and in passing on the complaint to be investigated. However, there was no evidence of fault in the way the Council conducted its safeguarding investigation. The complaint is not upheld.

;