The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the actions of the Care Provider in relation to her late mother Mrs Y’s care at one of its homes. There is insufficient injustice to Ms X caused by the Care Provider’s actions to warrant us investigating, and investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome.
The complaint
Ms X is the daughter of the late Mrs Y. Mrs Y had dementia and lived in The Manse care home, run by Sanctuary Care (‘the Care provider’) until spring 2023. Ms X complains the Care Provider: failed to get Mrs Y medical attention soon enough after she fell in the home in early 2023; failed to provide Mrs Y with suitable personal care; failed to provide Ms X with reports of the care being given to Mrs Y; refused to take Mrs Y back to the care home after she was hospitalised in spring 2023; failed to support her in finding an alternative home for Mrs Y.
Ms X says Mrs Y got repeated infections during her time at the home. She says she had to find another home for Mrs Y when the Care Provider would not readmit her. Ms X believes poor care at the home hastened Mrs Y’s death. Ms X says she has depression and is grieving Mrs Y’s death. She wants an apology from the Care Provider and for it to refund Mrs Y’s care fees.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 remaining 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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information from Ms X, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) fundamental care standards and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Care Provider has accepted it did not get Mrs Y medical attention soon enough after she fell at the home in early 2023. The Care Provider has apologised to Ms X for the incident and how staff responded. It has also: reminded staff of its policy for reporting falls and the process in place to report such incidents; given staff ongoing advice and training; referred the matter to the local safeguarding authority.
Were we to investigate, these are the kinds of outcomes we would have sought from the Care Provider. Investigation would not achieve a different outcome on this issue than has already been achieved.
Ms X says the Care Provider failed to provide Mrs Y with suitable personal care. She says this contributed to her ill health, including infections. The Care Provider says Mrs Y’s dementia affected her behaviour towards staff and reduced her willingness to accept personal care from them. Injustice in relation to the care provision was to Mrs Y. But we cannot remedy injustice to Mrs Y by investigating now she has died. We do not investigate where investigation will not resolve the core injustice caused by the body in jurisdiction because a person has died. We understand Ms X would have been distressed by the matters relating to Mrs Y’s placement. But the Care Provider has apologised to Ms X, which is the appropriate outcome. It has also waived some of Mrs Y’s fees for her placement. There is insufficient unremedied injustice directly caused to Ms X by the Care Provider’s actions to warrant us investigating, and investigation would not achieve a different outcome.
We note Ms X believes the care Mrs Y received contributed to her death. We cannot determine the Care Provider’s actions or inactions had this effect. Only a coroner can determine the causes or factors contributing to someone’s death. Investigation by us cannot achieve such a finding for Ms Y.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is the independent regulator of health and social care in England. The CQC has fundamental standards below which a person’s care should not fall. The Care Provider should have acted to prevent avoidable risk of harm to Mrs Y. Its failure in relation to the early 2023 incident may be a breach of the fundamental standards so we will refer this to the CQC.
Ms X says the Care Provider did not give her reports of its care services to Mrs Y. The CQC’s fundamental standards say Care Providers should keep full and accurate records of the care given. If the Care Provider made inadequate records of Mrs Y’s care provision, this may be a further standards breach. We recognise Ms X would have been frustrated by not receiving the records she requested at the time. But that injustice to her in 2023 is insufficiently significant to warrant us investigating this issue now.
Ms X says the Care Provider refused to take Mrs Y back to the home after she was hospitalised in spring 2023, and did not support her in finding an alternative home for Mrs Y. The Care Provider says it assessed Mrs Y’s care needs at that time and decided it could not provide the level of care and support required. Providers are entitled to end a resident’s placement, including where they determine they can no longer provide the care and support a resident needs. It would not be fault for a care provider to do this in compliance with the contract’s terms. While it would have been preferable for the Care Provider give some support to Ms X, ending a contract does not place a duty on it to assist a resident or their family to find an alternative placement. The actions of the Care Provider on these matters did not cause such significant injustice to Ms X to warrant us investigating them now.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because: there is insufficient subsisting injustice to Ms X caused by the Care Provider’s actions to warrant us investigating; and investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome.
Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the CQC.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman