The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care Mrs Y received from her Care Provider. This is because it is unlikely an investigation could add anything to the response the complainant has already received.
The complaint
The complainant, Mrs X, complained about the care her mother, Mrs Y, received from her Care Provider. Mrs X complained the Care Provider: Said Mrs Y should be in a care home.
Questioned Mrs Y’s capacity to make decisions.
Failed to arrange podiatry care.
Sent male carers, despite Mrs Y requesting female staff.
Failed to attend a meeting with the Council.
Eventually stopped providing care to Mrs Y.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended) In this case the Council commissioned the care provided to Mrs Y, but the Care Provider responded to Mrs X’s complaints.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Care Provider has responded to complaints from Mrs Y. It said: It had not said Mrs Y should be in a care home. Hospital staff had, however, said Mrs Y would possibly be going to an assessment bed before returning home.
Mrs Y’s capacity had been questioned in hospital, but this was due to delirium and a water infection.
A carer had spoken with Mrs X about Mrs Y’s toenails. Mrs Y can make her own hair and GP appointments and staff were therefore under the impression this issue had been resolved.
When Mrs Y’s care package started it did not involve personal care. The Care Provider had said it would try and use only female carers, but it could not guarantee this. When an element of personal care was introduced, the roster was altered. Out of 210 visits, 17 were by male staff. They did not stay in the room when Mrs X changed.
A member of staff failed to attend a review meeting with the Council, and this was an oversight on their behalf.
The Care Provider had told the Council it could not continue with Mrs Y’s care package because of a lack of staff.
Mrs X is clearly concerned by the issues which led to her complaint. But we will not start an investigation.
We were not there to witness comments made by staff and so could not add to the Care Provider’s responses. It has explained the confusion over podiatry appointments and there was no commitment to only send male carers. It has apologised for missing a meeting with the Council.
We could not therefore add anything to the Care Provider’s response. As the Care Provider no longer provides care for Mrs Y, we could not make any recommendations to improve the service she receives. We will not therefore investigate.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint is because it is unlikely we could add anything to the response the complainant has already received.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman