The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care home. That is because we could not add to the Care Providers previous investigation.
The complaint
Mrs X complained on behalf of her late father-in-law, Mr Y, about the care he received in a care home (the Home). She said he suffered from dehydration and malnutrition whilst in its care; and the Home did not recognise he had pneumonia or call a GP when he was unwell.
She wants the Home to learn from its mistakes, apologise and take steps to ensure the same issues do not arise again.
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: we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
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 that owned the Home where Mr Y lived completed an investigation into Mrs X’s complaint. It shared the findings of that investigation with the Council’s adults safeguarding team.
The Care Provider said that food offered to Mr Y by the Home, was at times refused by Mr Y and his wife. It said concerns were shared with Mr Y’s GP and that fortified foods were offered. It said although Mr Y did lose some weight, he remained within a healthy Body Mass Index (BMI). It said it asked staff to record Mr Y’s food intake, however said that on some occasions, staff did not always record food refusal. It said that as an outcome of its investigation, it was introducing more detailed recording.
The Care Provider said that Mr Y’s wife, had alerted staff to him being unwell one weekend. It said the nursing staff completed observations and contacted the out-of-hours GP service for advice. The on-call GP decided a visit was not necessary. Mr Y was admitted to hospital the next day, following a pre-arranged appointment. The Care Provider said the Home were told late evening that he was being admitted with suspected pneumonia. It said the physical observations the previous day were not indicative of pneumonia.
Although Mrs X is dissatisfied with Care Provider’s response, we will not investigate this complaint further. I am satisfied the Care Provider has properly considered Mr Y’s care records and investigated the complaint. We can’t say Mr Y suffered malnutrition, as his weight remained in a health BMI range. The Care Provider has made service improvements around communication with family and case recording as necessary. We could not add anything further to its investigation and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we could not add anything to the Care Provider’s investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman