Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Care Home delayed in responding to call-bells. That is because further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained on behalf of his mother, Mrs Y. He said that whilst Mrs Y was resident at a care home (the Home), it failed to respond to her call-bells in a timely manner. He said on several occasions she had to wait more than an hour for assistance to use the toilet.
2. Mr X said he attempted to contact the Care Home to raise his concerns, but these were not responded to. He said the Home’s actions had caused Mrs Y significant distress.
3. Mr X wants the Care Provide to acknowledge its failings and change how it records call-bell response time as he states the current system is open to staff abuse.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council funded Mrs Y’s placement, therefore, it is responsible for the actions of the Home. The Council agreed Mr X would complain directly to the Care Provider about Mrs Y’s care.
8. The Care Provider analysed Mrs Y’s call-bell response between 22 April and 21 June 2021. It said it answered 75% of calls in under 3 minutes; 14% in over 5 minutes and 11% of calls answered in over 10 minutes. It said on 19 June Mrs Y’s call bell was not attended to for over an hour and 53 minutes.
9. In its complaint response, the Care Provider:
• Apologised for the delays in responding to the call-bell.
• Confirmed a new manager had been seconded to the Home and was completing a weekly call bell analysis to ensure staff responded to residents in a timely manner.
10. The Council also notified the Care Quality Commission of Mr X’s concerns about the Care Provider’s response times.
11. Mr X is dissatisfied with the Care Provider’s complaint response. He sated its current systems do not provide an accurate reflection of response times. He said staff would frequently cancel the call-bell, but not provide his mother the required support and she was let significantly longer than recorded.
12. I recognise how important this complaint is to Mrs Y and Mr X but we will not investigate further. The Care Provider has accepted there was a delay in responding to call-bells and asked its Home Manager to monitor this. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome. We cannot make the Care Home introduce a new system to record call-bells.
13. The Care Provider also apologised for the occasions where staff did not answer Mr X’s telephone calls and introduced portable phones.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman