A council has apologised and agreed to pay out £4,000 over failings that left a woman with dementia “severely malnourished” while living in a care home.
Wokingham council admitted it missed problems with the woman’s care after a Local Government Ombudsman investigation found she had lost a third of her body weight during her time at the home between 2010 and 2013.
The watchdog said the case should serve as a warning to local authorities that they cannot “contract out the accountability” for care they have commissioned from third party providers.
The ombudsman launched its investigation after the woman’s daughter complained about the care her mother had received at the home. As well as raising concerns about malnourishment, she said her mum was under stimulated during her time at the home and had broken her hip during a fall after she was left to walk unaided.
The woman’s care plan had stated she required supervision with walking, medication, eating and drinking, and also needed encouragement to interact as she was in a low mood.
Wokingham council admitted it had not reviewed the woman’s care properly during her time at the home due to an administrative error.
The local authority said it accepted the ombudsman’s report and was acting on its recommendations, which included a call to pay £3,500 to the woman and £500 to her daughter to remedy the situation.
Dr Jane Martin, the Local Government Ombudsman, said: “Sadly, this is an example where a vulnerable woman and her family have suffered because their council has neglected its duty to them.
“In this case the woman was bored, lost a considerable amount of weight and her wellbeing was not promoted. Fortunately, since moving to a different care home she has regained weight and is now within a healthy range.”
Councillor Julian McGhee-Sumner, Wokingham’s executive member for health and wellbeing, said the authority was “profoundly sorry” for the poor care provided to the woman and the distress caused to her and her family.
“The care she received was below the standard we expect from our care providers and we apologise that we did not identify these problems.
“The period of concern was 2010 to 2013 and we have fully accepted the Local Government Ombudsman’s report and have already put changes in place to meet its recommendations.
“We are confident that through the implementation of our duties under the Care Act 2014, full review and development of our safeguarding and quality assurance within commissioned services, and our review of our internal processes that we have fully addressed the concerns of the Ombudsman.”
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole 
Hampshire County Council 
Lincolnshire County Council 
Norfolk County Council 
Northamptonshire Children’s Trust 
South Gloucestershire Council 
Wiltshire Council 
Wokingham Borough Council 
Children and young people with SEND are ‘valued and prioritised’ in Wiltshire, find inspectors 
How specialist refugee teams benefit young people and social workers 
Podcast: returning to social work after becoming a first-time parent 
Podcast: would you work for an inadequate-rated service? 
Family help: one local authority’s experience of the model 
‘We are all one big family’: how one council has built a culture of support 
Workforce Insights – showcasing a selection of the sector’s top recruiters 
Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Instagram
What was the name of the care home please.
Community Care is a mouthpiece for the care industry. It’s a shame they take this approach.
The home is Murdoch House, run by Four Seasons Health Care.
Rated “Good” on the CQC website!
Will FSHC and the Registered Manager be held accountable?
http://www.cqc.org.uk/location/1-304025767
FSHC again or Southern Cross AGAIN – tip of the iceberg on these mega providers. Agree community care should name and shame but most of the organisations involved in poor care have no shame
The registered manager is still there. The local authority have not been in touch. My mother moved and has gained half as much weight again and is much happier.
Not enough people complain about poor care and societies most vulnerable suffer as a consequence. Employees and relatives can whistleblow to the Safeguarding department of their local council in complete confidentiality.
The home was run by southern cross at their time, now by four seasons.
Shame on community care for not naming the provider.
Anyone from community care to explain why the providers – current and former – weren’t named?
Hi Ben,
Thanks for raising this point. The name of the provider wasn’t deliberately omitted. The ombudsman’s report made recommendations for the local authority and finding of fault with the council, hence why the LA was the focus of my piece but I’ll take on board the comments. Best, Andy