Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the residential care his mother received. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault or personal injustice. It is also unlikely we could add anything to the response Mr X has already received.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains about the residential care his mother (Mrs Y) received.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the care provider followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19”.
3. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the care provider.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I gave the complainant the opportunity to comment on a draft decision and took into account any comments received.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. Mrs Y was a resident of the care provider. Mrs Y has now transferred to a different care home. Mr X complained to the care provider about various aspects of Mrs Y’s care. These included:
• Poor communication from the care provider and a delay in telling relatives there had been an outbreak of COVID-19 in the care home.
• Staff not wearing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and a member of staff entering the building in their uniform.
• The care provider using agency staff despite government guidance advising against this.
• A hairdresser visiting the care home after the hair and beauty industry was ordered to shut down due to COVID-19.
• The care provider not telling Mr X about his mother losing weight and Mrs Y developing a fungal infection in one of her toenails.
• Personal possessions belonging to Mrs Y going missing.
8. Mr X also raised his concerns with the Council. There was a delay in the care provider responding to Mr X while it waited for the Council to complete its investigation. The Council did not respond to Mr X and so the care provider decided it would not wait any longer. In its response to Mr X it said:
• Relatives were told by email on 09 November and 11 November 2020 staff had tested positive for COVID-19. The care provider was not sure why Mr X had not received these emails, but its IT team were investigating. Mr X had asked for daily updates and these were eventually provided. The CEO of the care provider sent out weekly updates. The care provider accepted there were times when communications could have been better.
• The Council and CQC had visited the care home and had no concerns about PPE or infection control.
• Agency staff were used to keep the care home operating and were used in line with government guidance. Agency staff were part of the care home’s testing regime.
• The hairdresser entered the care home as an employee of the care group, did not work anywhere else, and was part of the care home’s testing regime.
• Mrs Y lost 3.5 kilograms between October and November. She was on a food and fluid chart, a fortified diet, and was under the care of her GP during this time. There had been a telephone consultation on 09 October, blood tests on 15 October and a medical review on 04 November. There was no record of problems with Mrs Y’s toenails.
• There had been a delay in paying for the possessions reported missing, but this had now been approved.

Assessment

9. We do not investigate all the complaints we receive. As I explain in paragraph 3, we need to consider various factors before deciding if we should start an investigation. These include the injustice caused from the alleged fault and what an investigation is likely to achieve. These tests are set out in our Assessment Code.
10. I understand how concerned Mr X is about the issues at the heart of his complaint. But I am not persuaded we should investigate his complaint. The reasons for this are below:
• The care provider has accepted there were times when its communications with relatives could have been better. But COVID-19 placed unprecedented demands on care providers. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation and it is difficult to see what we could now achieve.
• The care provider says the Council and CQC found no concerns about its use of PPE or how it managed infection control. It is unlikely we could add anything to this point. Even if we were to investigate, we could not say the alleged fault caused an outbreak of COVID-19. Also, Mrs Y did not catch the virus, and so there can be no injustice from this point.
• Care homes were able to use agency staff in limited circumstances. This was often essential if care homes were to continue to operate. It is therefore unlikely we could say the care provider was at fault for using agency staff. There is also no evidence this issue caused Mrs Y any personal injustice.
• I do not know if the hairdresser Mr X refers to worked as a hairdresser when she entered the care home, or simply entered the premises as an employee. Mr X has provided evidence which he says is proof the hairdresser worked when forbidden to do so because of COVID-19. But even if this was the case, there is no evidence it caused Mrs Y any injustice and we could not now achieve anything.
• I recognise Mr X is upset the care provider did not contact him about his mother’s weight loss. But as the care provider has said, Mrs Y was under the care of her GP. There is not enough evidence of fault in the care provided, and any injustice to Mr X himself is limited, and could not now be remedied. It is unlikely we could add anything to the response about Mrs Y’s toenail.
• The care provider has arranged payment for the missing items. There is nothing more we could now achieve.
11. For the reasons set out above we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault or personal injustice, and it is unlikely we could add to the response Mr X has already received.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman