Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about her father Mr Y’s care during a 2024 respite stay in a care home commissioned by the Council. An investigation by us would not add to the care firm’s complaint investigation and Council’s safeguarding process, nor achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr Y is elderly and has various medical conditions. Mrs X is his daughter. Mr Y had a respite stay at a care home, Hengist Field Care Centre, commissioned by the Council.
2. Mrs X complains the care home gave Mr Y inadequate care. She says the provision worsened Mr Y’s health, leaving him with an infection, disorientated, distressed, dehydrated, having lost weight, and wet with urine. Mr Y was hospitalised immediately after he left the home and was in a medical setting for six weeks. Mrs X says matters also caused anxiety and upset to Mr Y’s partner and his family. She wants the Council to waive the care fees, formally apologise and for the home’s staff to receive training.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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

4. I considered information from Mrs X, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The core of Mrs X’s complaint is that poor care provided to him while at the home caused Mr Y to acquire an infection and experience a worsening of his condition which required him to have a stay in hospital. In response to the complaint, a manager at the care firm investigated. They reviewed the care documents including the home’s pre-admission notes, Mr Y’s care plan, his care notes for food, hydration and personal care, and the contacts with his family and a GP. The manager took statements from staff members involved in Mr Y’s care on the day he left the home, and spoke to the home’s senior management. The manager responded to the complaint, setting out the home’s actions to provide care and support for Mr Y during his stay, based on the information gathered. They found the home had provided support for all of Mr Y’s needs. The Council also conducted a safeguarding investigation. The officer met with the home’s management to investigate. The enquiry outcome was there was not enough evidence to show that abuse occurred at the care home, nor to show a direct causation between the home’s care provision and Mr Y’s hospital admission.
6. Both the Council and the care firm have conducted investigations based on the relevant available evidence about Mr Y’s care during his stay. An investigation by us would not add to those already done by the care firm and the Council here. No additional information or evidence would be available to us which has not already been considered by the care home’s and the Council’s safeguarding investigations. An Ombudsman investigation would not lead to a different outcome regarding Mr Y’s care and whether any aspect of it was the cause of the subsequent impacts on his condition. For these reasons, we will not investigate.
7. Both the care home investigation and the Council’s safeguarding process found Mr Y had not been given appropriate care with his incontinence on the day he left the home. The home apologised to Mrs X for the lack of provision. An apology is the outcome we would have sought for this issue, if it had not already been given. There is no different outcome an investigation would achieve on this part of the complaint. We will share our decision statement with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) because this issue, accepted by the care firm and the Council, indicates a breach of the fundamental care standards.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• an investigation by us would not add to the care firm’s investigation and Council’s safeguarding process; and
• a further investigation would not achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman