The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Care Home used a hoist to transfer her father, Mr Y whilst he was having respite. That is because there is insufficient of fault in the Care Home’s actions to justify our involvement. The Care Provider has already apologised to Mrs X for its communication. That remedies any injustice caused.
The complaint
Mrs X complained on behalf of her father, Mr Y. She said that during a thirteen-day respite stay at the Care Home, it transferred him using a hoist. She said on admission, Mr Y could weight bare for transfers with the assistance of two carers and an ambiturn. She said the Care Home’s decision to use a hoist had resulted in Mr Y losing his mobility and he is now dependent on a hoist for all transfers.
Mrs X said the Care Home failed to tell the family it was transferring Mr Y with a hoist. She said if it had, they may have removed him from the Care Home, or discussed the potential implications of using the hoist with him. Mrs X wants the Care Home to set-aside the respite fees as she believes its actions have irreversibly changed Mr Y’s life.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
In the Care Provider’s complaint response it said that shortly after admission, the Care Home identified concerns with the method of transfer Mr Y used in his own home. It said the amount of support Mr Y needed to stand would constitute a ’drag lift’; it explained this is an illegal way for care staff to transfer residents and can lead to staff injury. It explained that it discussed its concerns with Mr Y who agreed to the Care Home using the hoist for all transfers. Although Mrs X may disagree with the Care Home’s decision to hoist Mr Y, we will not investigate this further. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Care Home’s actions.
The Care Provider apologised to Mrs X for not informing the family about the reassessment of Mr Y’s moving and handling needs. Although Mrs X said the family might have removed Mr Y from the placement if they had known this sooner, we cannot come speculate on what might have happened. In addition, Mr Y had capacity and agreed to the use of the hoist. It would have been his decision to end the respite placement. Although Mrs X wants the Care Home to set aside the respite fees, this is not a remedy we would recommend for the fault identified. The Care Home has apologised and I am satisfied that remedies any injustice caused by the Care Home’s lack of communication.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman