Finland's parliamentary ombudsman has uncovered severe and systemic care failures in a surprise inspection at Hoivakoti Lehmuskartano, a care home in Kirkkonummi. A report released last week details how chronic understaffing, linked to a national policy change, has left elderly residents without basic hygiene, mobility, or meaningful social contact for entire days.
A Day Without Dignity
The inspection, ordered by Deputy Ombudsman Maija Sakslin in late June, found that caregivers often could not get all 50 residents out of bed by lunchtime due to overwhelming workloads. Staff reported that even essential tasks were left undone weekly, including brushing teeth or changing a resident's soiled shirt into a clean one. "Many interviewees stated that only the mandatory tasks related to basic care get done, but there is no time for anything else," the report states. It notes that tasks within basic care itself were also missed because of the rush.
One particularly stark example involved a resident who required two caregivers for a shower, a process that took over half an hour. During this time, a third staff member was needed on another ward, leaving the rest of the residents in the day room or their rooms with no member of staff present. The report also revealed that protective hygiene aprons meant only for nighttime use were sometimes not removed until near lunchtime because staff did not have a moment to change.
The Human Cost of a Policy Shift
Staff at Lehmuskartano directly linked the intensified crisis to a nationwide decision to reduce care home staffing ratios. At the start of last year, Finland's Parliament, following a proposal from Prime Minister Petteri Orpo's government, lowered the statutory staffing minimum from 0.65 caregivers per resident to 0.6. "Previously, caregivers had more time for the residents," the inspection report concludes. It states the experienced rush has affected the unit's atmosphere, with one caregiver describing how relaxation among staff is gone and workers hurry from one task to another.
The consequences of this policy shift were witnessed in raw, human terms. Inspectors documented the case of a resident who, according to staff testimony, had never been taken outdoors. The report catalogs multiple situations where good care and attention simply did not materialize for residents. "Several situations emerged in the Lehmuskartano inspection where the good care and supervision of residents has not been realized," Deputy Ombudsman Maija Sakslin concluded.
A Systemic Failure in Basic Care
The findings at Lehmuskartano are not an isolated incident. Last year, Deputy Ombudsman Sakslin ordered several surprise inspections into Finland's 24-hour care service units for the elderly. The Lehmuskartano report paints a picture of a system buckling under pressure. Caregivers told inspectors that many residents actually need two people to assist them safely, but in rush situations, they are often handled by a single staff member due to a lack of available colleagues.
This creates a cycle of risk and neglect. The report indicates that the relentless pace and inability to provide dignified care have eroded the well-being of both residents and the staff tasked with their protection. The omission of non-essential but vital social and recreational activities is now compounded by failures in fundamental physical care, suggesting a descent below legally mandated standards of treatment.
The Parliamentary Ombudsman's Role
The inspection was carried out by officials from the Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, one of Finland's key guardians of legality and citizens' rights. Their mandate allows them to investigate the activities of authorities and service providers working on behalf of the public. A surprise inspection, or unannounced check, is a critical tool for seeing the everyday reality of a service, beyond prepared presentations. The detailed witness accounts from staff and the observations made on-site form the core of the damning report.
The office's involvement elevates the findings from an internal complaint to a matter of official legal scrutiny. It places the operational failures of the private care home provider within the context of the state's obligation to ensure adequate care for its elderly citizens, especially after Parliament itself voted to alter the staffing framework that underpins that care.