Other


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Consensa Care Group Limited (17 002 524)

    Statement Upheld Other 06-Jun-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsmen found fault by a Trust in not following the wishes of a patient when he was recalled to hospital under the Mental Health Act. However, the Trust took action to remedy this and there was no fault with its care planning. There was no fault by the Trust in explaining the patient's rights under the Mental Health Act. There was fault with record keeping by a supported living placement, but there was no evidence this caused any injustice to the resident.

  • Fine Care Homes Ltd t/a Roebuck Nursing Home (16 004 190)

    Statement Not upheld Other 26-May-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsmen found a nursing home acted without fault in the care it provided to an elderly woman when she became acutely unwell. Similarly, the Ombudsmen found no fault in the general care provided to the woman during her time in the nursing home.

  • Barchester Healthcare Homes Ltd (16 007 557)

    Statement Upheld Other 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.

  • Huddersfield Nursing Homes Ltd (16 003 932)

    Statement Upheld Other 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.

  • North Kirklees Clinical Commissioning Group (16 003 205)

    Statement Not upheld Other 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.

  • Panaceon Healthcare Limited (16 003 918)

    Statement Upheld Other 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.

  • Somerset Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (16 001 012)

    Statement Not upheld Other 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.

  • Bupa Care Homes (CFC Homes) Limited (16 017 170)

    Statement Upheld Other 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.

  • Bupa Care Homes (CFH Care) Limited (16 003 451)

    Statement Upheld Other 05-May-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsmen found the Trust failed to act in accordance with its safeguarding procedures when it received a safeguarding alert but it took action to improve. The Ombudsmen found the Council, the CCG and Bupa Care Homes failed to communicate properly about funding and responsibility after the CCG placed the complainant's father in a care home. The Council delayed in assessing the complainant's father and also failed to be clear about who was financially responsible for the placement. Because of this the complainant was caused distress when she received a bill for the placement and her father remained in an inappropriate placement for longer than necessary. The Council has agreed to the Ombudsmen recommendations that it pays the complainant's father £1857 and refund £64 he paid extra for care fees. Bupa will pay £192 to the complainant. The CCG has agreed to improve its processes around healthcare funding eligibility decisions. The CCG, the Council and Bupa will also apologise to the complainant and each pay her £100.

  • East & North Hertfordshire CCG (16 003 450)

    Statement Upheld Other 05-May-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsmen found the Trust failed to act in accordance with its safeguarding procedures when it received a safeguarding alert but it took action to improve. The Ombudsmen found the Council, the CCG and Bupa Care Homes failed to communicate properly about funding and responsibility after the CCG placed the complainant's father in a care home. The Council delayed in assessing the complainant's father and also failed to be clear about who was financially responsible for the placement. Because of this the complainant was caused distress when she received a bill for the placement and her father remained in an inappropriate placement for longer than necessary. The Council has agreed to the Ombudsmen recommendations that it pays the complainant's father £1857 and refund £64 he paid extra for care fees. Bupa will pay £192 to the complainant. The CCG has agreed to improve its processes around healthcare funding eligibility decisions. The CCG, the Council and Bupa will also apologise to the complainant and each pay her £100.

;