Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about issues with her stay at The Hall care home. The Care Provider’s actions or inactions did not cause sufficient significant personal injustice to warrant us investigating. An investigation would also be unlikely to achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X stayed at The Hall care home to recover after she had a medical procedure. She complains:
1. the home did not provide foods suitable for her diabetic needs;
2. the home failed to properly maintain the cleanliness of her bedding, her room’s window and temperature, and the shower;
3. she caught a vomiting and diarrhoea infection during her stay;
4. staff did not give her all her medication when she left the home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers and decide whether their actions have caused an injustice, or could have caused injustice, to the person making the complaint. I have used the term fault to describe such actions. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B and 34C)
3. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B(8) and (9))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X says the home did not always cater for her dietary needs as a diabetic. The documents from the Care Provider and Ms X indicate the home was mostly able to resolve the issues for each meal. We recognise Ms X may have been caused some annoyance at the food available to her at some times. But she does not say the food had any significant impact on her health or condition. Ms X also raises issues with the maintenance of her room. While these issues would have caused her some further dissatisfaction, they do not amount to matters which would cause significant injustice. The food and room management issues caused insufficient significant personal injustice to Ms X to warrant us investigating.
6. It is accepted by the Care Provider that Ms X had a gut infection during her stay. Ms X also says she did not get all her medications when she left the home, a point the Care Provider disputes. On both issues, an investigation by us now would not enable us to find it was any action or inaction by the Care Provider which led to Ms X’s illness, nor what happened to any medication she did not receive on leaving. That an investigation by us would be unlikely to achieve a different outcome on these issues is a further reason why we will not investigate here.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because:
• the actions or inactions of the Care Provider caused insufficient significant personal injustice to warrant us investigating; and
• an investigation would be unlikely to achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman