In short and in plain language
This article is about complaints about a care service. Often, family members complain. For example, when the nurse came late.
A care service needs a fixed plan for complaints. This is set out in rules for care. This is not new. Since the summer, the rules have come in a new form.
The website can help with this. It has a short form. You write what went wrong. You can ask for a call back.
The care service says when it will get back to you. If something is urgent, please call right away.
We build this page and the form into your website.
Since 1 July 2026 (MuG ambulant), a new version of the quality standards and principles has applied to home care services in Germany. It contains a sentence that concerns every service: the care service keeps a written procedure for handling complaints, or a complaints management system, and applies it. Relatives usually know nothing about this. They call the office, they write to the general email address when nobody picks up, or they do not write at all and look for another service. Your own website can give feedback a clear way in: a short page on the complaints route, a feedback form with three fields, a call-back request and a reply time that the service sets itself. This article explains what the MuG require, how the form is structured, how complaints are kept apart from reports under the Whistleblower Protection Act and from public reviews, and what to consider for data protection.
Key takeaways
- Like their previous version (Bundesanzeiger), the MuG ambulant in force since 1 July 2026 (MuG ambulant) require a written procedure for handling complaints or a complaints management system. Relatives are named explicitly as people who may complain.
- In December 2023, 1.1 million people in need of care (Federal Statistical Office) were looked after at home wholly or partly by home care services. People who want to complain rarely sit in the office; a form on the website is reachable around the clock.
- The feedback form needs three fields: the concern, a call-back request with phone number and time window, and consent. Diagnoses and medication belong in the call-back, not in the form.
- The MuG do not set a fixed reply deadline. The page states the time the service promises itself and points to the phone for anything urgent, because only 49 percent of people aged 80 and over are online (Bitkom).
- The complaints route, the reporting channel under the HinSchG and public reviews are three separate routes. The deadlines of seven days and three months in Section 17 HinSchG apply to reports of violations, not to complaints from relatives.
- If a complaint reaches the care insurance fund, it can trigger an ad hoc inspection, which as a rule extends to a full review of the service (Section 114(4) SGB XI). People in need of care can terminate the care contract at any time without notice (Section 120(2) SGB XI).
What the MuG ambulant have required since July 2026
The standards and principles for quality in home care, known as MuG (Maßstäbe und Grundsätze), are agreed by the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Funds, the federal working group of the supra-local social welfare agencies, the municipal umbrella associations and the federal associations of home care providers. The legal basis is Section 113 SGB XI, and the law makes these agreements directly binding on approved care facilities (Section 113(1) SGB XI). The current version is dated 28 April 2025 (MuG ambulant) and entered into force on 1 July 2026 (MuG ambulant), at the same time as the revised quality inspection guidelines. It replaces the version of 24 October 2023 (MuG ambulant). The duty to manage complaints was already part of that previous version (Bundesanzeiger); it is not new, it simply continues in the new version.
Section 1.3, on internal quality management, contains the sentence this article is about:
The home care service keeps a written procedure for handling complaints or a complaints management system and applies it.
Two parts of the sentence carry the obligation. The first is the word written: a procedure that only exists in the heads of the care management is not enough. The second is the ending, applies it: a template filed in the quality manual does not do the job; the service has to actually receive and handle complaints. The MuG describe the purpose more precisely right after. The service ensures that complaints from people in need of care and their relatives and close persons are received, processed and, where possible, resolved, as far as they relate to the provision of care (MuG ambulant, Section 1.3). Relatives are therefore named explicitly as people who may complain. For home support services, the same agreement contains an identical rule in Part 1b.
What the MuG leave open matters just as much. They prescribe neither a specific channel nor a deadline within which a complaint must be answered. An online form is therefore not mandatory. The website is, however, an obvious place to make the written procedure visible. The MuG also require the service to present itself in a clear written information for the public and list, among other possible contents, internal quality management (MuG ambulant, Section 2.2). A page on the complaints route fits exactly there.
The sentence also has consequences in quality inspections. In inspection form B at facility level, the quality inspection guidelines ask, among other things, whether suitable measures are carried out within internal quality management to identify quality deficits (QPR ambulant Part 1a, inspection form B 5.1). Evaluated complaints can support such a measure: they show where visits run late, agreements get lost or invoices raise questions. What else the inspection covers is described in our article on the 2026 quality inspection.
Why the website is an easy way in
Home care takes place in the client's home, not in the service's office. In December 2023, 86 percent (Federal Statistical Office) of the almost 5.7 million people in need of care (Federal Statistical Office) were looked after at home. 1.1 million of them (Federal Statistical Office) lived in private households and were cared for together with or entirely by home care and support services. On the same reference date, the care statistics counted 15,549 home care services (Federal Statistical Office), including support services.
The person who wants to complain is often not the person receiving care but a daughter, a son, a neighbor or a legal guardian. Quite often they work during the day or do not live nearby. If the care service's office is not staffed when they have time, the frustration either stays unspoken or ends up where everyone can read it: in a public review.
There is also an inhibition that the consumer advice centers describe explicitly: those affected sometimes stay silent for fear of losing their care place (Verbraucherzentralen). A form that works without a phone call and without talking to the nurse on site lowers this threshold. It does not replace the conversation, but it makes the first step easier, especially when the page states clearly that nobody receives worse care because of a complaint.
That relatives and many people in need of care can use this route is shown by a representative survey of 1,004 people aged 65 and over (Bitkom): around 74 percent of this age group use the internet (Bitkom). The share drops markedly with age, though. Among people aged 80 and over, only just under half are online, 49 percent to be exact (Bitkom). For the complaints route this leads to a clear rule: the form complements the phone, it does not replace it.
The MuG themselves draw a similar line for availability. The home care service is permanently reachable for the people it cares for, and permanent availability is not given if only an answering machine can be reached or emails can be sent (MuG ambulant, Section 2.1). This rule concerns care provision, not the complaints route. It does, however, show where a form reaches its limit: if a visit is missed today, that belongs on the phone. The page on the complaints route says so explicitly and puts the number right next to it.
The feedback form: three fields are enough
A feedback form for relatives is deliberately short. Every extra mandatory field costs effort, and every piece of information that is not needed still has to be protected by the service. The GDPR requires anyway that personal data be adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary for the purpose (Article 5(1)(c) GDPR). Three fields carry the route:
- Concern: a free text field with a short hint below, for example: What is it about, which visit or appointment is affected, what would you like to happen? An optional choice such as visit times, manner, agreements, invoice or other makes the later evaluation easier.
- Call-back request: phone number and a time window such as mornings, afternoons or evenings. Anyone who prefers a written answer chooses email. Name and contact details are only mandatory if a reply is wanted, and the page explains this in one sentence.
- Consent: a checkbox that links to the privacy notes for the form. Complaints often contain information about the health of the person receiving care, so explicit and voluntary consent is the usual approach (Article 9(2)(a) GDPR). Which legal basis applies in the individual case is something the service clarifies with its data protection adviser.
What does not belong in the form: diagnoses, medication lists, insurance numbers and photos of wounds. If a complaint needs such details, the call-back covers them. One sentence directly above the text field keeps relatives from writing more than the first step requires: Please do not mention diagnoses, we will discuss details when we call you back.
| Aspect | General contact form | Feedback form for complaints |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Inquiries about services, free capacity and costs | Criticism, suggestions and complaints about ongoing care |
| Recipient | Shared office inbox | Named person for complaints and their deputy |
| Mandatory fields | Name, contact, message | Concern and consent, contact details only if a reply is wanted |
| After sending | Often just a short thank-you message | Confirmation page with the next step and the promised reply time |
| Evaluation | Usually none | Entry in the complaints log with category, date, solution and reply |
| Urgent matters | No separate note | Visible note: if a visit is missed, please call |
Acceptance often depends on an inconspicuous detail: the page after sending. It says what happens now, who will get in touch and within what time. An empty page that just says thank you leaves relatives unsure whether their message has arrived. Usability matters just as much: visible labels instead of gray placeholder text, buttons large enough to tap and error messages that say what is missing. What counts here is described on our page about the accessible care website.
Confirmation and reply time: promise, do not invent
The MuG contain no deadline for answering a complaint. The Charter of Rights for People in Need of Help and Care, known as the Pflege-Charta, phrases the expectation more openly: people in need of care can expect management and staff to respond quickly and sensitively to criticism and suggestions, and they are entitled to learn promptly what has been or will be done as a result of the complaint (Pflege-Charta, Article 4). There is no number there either. That is both freedom and responsibility: the service sets its own reply time and then keeps it.
Other areas of law do set fixed deadlines, which easily causes confusion. The Whistleblower Protection Act requires an internal reporting office to confirm receipt of a report within seven days at the latest (Section 17(1) HinSchG) and to give feedback within three months (Section 17(2) HinSchG). These deadlines apply to reports of violations from working life, not to a relative's complaint about a late visit. They do not belong on the page about the complaints route, otherwise it creates the impression of a legal obligation that does not exist there.
A real deadline can still apply if a complaint contains more than criticism. If someone asks in the same message for access to the data stored about them, the General Data Protection Regulation applies: the controller provides the information without undue delay and in any event within one month of receipt of the request, and the period may be extended by two months where necessary, taking into account the complexity and number of requests (Article 12(3) GDPR). Anyone handling complaints should recognize such requests and pass them on to the responsible person immediately.
For the service's own promise, a three-stage form works well that also holds up during holidays and sick leave:
- Acknowledgment of receipt: directly after sending, on the confirmation page and by email if an address was given. It confirms receipt and names the responsible person and the next step.
- First personal response: within a time the service can reliably keep with a deputy, for example on the next working day. The website phrases this as the service's own promise, not as a legal entitlement: As a rule, we will get back to you on the next working day.
- Reply on the outcome: as soon as the matter is resolved, stating what the service has changed, or explaining why not. If the resolution takes longer, there is an interim update.
Wording for the page
The cycle: intake, confirmation, resolution, reply
The written procedure the MuG require describes a process, not a form. The form is just the entry point to a cycle of four stations. Writing it down once also gives you a draft for the procedure in the quality manual.
- Intake: feedback arrives via the form, by phone, by letter or in conversation with the nurse. All routes end up in the same complaints log, including the verbal ones.
- Confirmation: automatically for the form, in person for a call or conversation. The person learns who is responsible and when they will hear back.
- Resolution: call-back, conversation with those involved, a visit on site if needed. The care manager decides on measures, such as changed route planning, a case review or a correction to the invoice.
- Reply: the person who complained learns what will change. The outcome is recorded in the log and feeds into the evaluation.
Only the evaluation closes the cycle. The MuG describe quality management as an ongoing process of planning, implementation, review and, where necessary, improvement (MuG ambulant, Section 1.3). They also state that quality management requires including the expectations and assessments of the people in need of care (MuG ambulant, Section 1.3). For complaints this means: sorting the entries by category at regular intervals and asking what keeps coming back. If feedback about visit times piles up in one district, the cause is more likely in route planning than with an individual nurse.
The website helps quietly here. The form delivers entries with date and category that can be evaluated without retyping, and the office records phone complaints in the same template. Over the months this builds a picture that moves more in the team meeting than individual memories of difficult calls.
Praise belongs in the same cycle
Complaint, report, review: keep three routes apart
On a care website, three routes easily end up side by side and get confused. The reporting channel under the Whistleblower Protection Act protects people who obtained information about violations in connection with their work (Section 1(1) HinSchG). These are mainly employees. What this channel looks like on the website is described in our article on the whistleblower reporting channel in home care. Relatives who complain about a late visit or an unfriendly tone, on the other hand, belong on the complaints route.
The third route lies outside the website: public reviews on map services and portals. They are visible to everyone looking for a service, and they stay up. A complaints route that is easy to find should neither prevent nor replace reviews. It does, however, offer dissatisfied relatives an alternative in which the problem can be solved in direct conversation. How to deal with public reviews is shown on our page on Google reviews for care services and in the article Reviews and trust. Reviews by employees follow their own rules, described in our article on employer reviews in care.
| Feature | Complaints route | Reporting channel under HinSchG | Public review |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who | People in need of care, relatives, legal guardians | Mainly employees and others with a work connection | Anyone with an account on the portal |
| What it is about | Care, agreements, manner, invoices | Violations within the scope of Section 2 HinSchG | Experiences, praise and criticism |
| Basis | MuG ambulant, Section 1.3 | Sections 12 to 17 HinSchG | Rules of the respective portal |
| Deadlines | Set by the service itself | Seven days to confirm, three months to give feedback (Section 17 HinSchG) | None |
| Visibility | Internal | Confidential | Public |
If a complaint goes unanswered internally, relatives can turn to official bodies. The ZQP foundation names the long-term care insurance fund or private care insurer, the Medical Service or the inspection service of private health insurance and, in some federal states, also the residential care supervisory authority (ZQP). Before an ad hoc inspection, the state associations of the care insurance funds first check complaints and reports for plausibility (QPR ambulant Part 1a). If an ad hoc inspection does take place, the inspection mandate as a rule goes beyond the occasion and covers a full inspection (Section 114(4) SGB XI). If the complaint concerns a specific client, that person is included in the sample where possible (QPR ambulant Part 1a).
The page on the complaints route still names these bodies openly. The Pflege-Charta, too, lists the care insurance fund, the Medical Service and supervisory authorities as points of contact (Pflege-Charta, annex). A service that keeps quiet about the external route does not look more trustworthy but less so. There is also a business reason: the person in need of care can terminate the care contract at any time without notice (Section 120(2) SGB XI). Anyone whose complaint gets nowhere will, if in doubt, switch services. How services, conversely, reach people who want to switch is described in our article on switching home care provider.
What belongs on the complaints page
The page itself is short and written in plain language. It is not hidden in the legal notice but can be reached from the contact page, from the footer and from the information on the care contract. Six building blocks are enough:
Who can get in touch
People in need of care, relatives, legal guardians and neighbors who have noticed something. Praise and suggestions are just as welcome.
The routes
Form, phone number with hours of availability, postal address and the offer of a personal conversation, at home if preferred.
What happens next
The four steps intake, confirmation, resolution and reply in simple sentences, with the responsible person and their deputy.
The reply time
The time the service promises itself, phrased as a rule. Plus the note that missed visits should be reported by phone immediately.
No disadvantages
The sentence that nobody receives worse care because of a complaint, and the offer to treat concerns confidentially on request.
External bodies
Care insurance fund, Medical Service and, where responsible, the supervisory authority, with the request to give the service a chance to resolve things first.
The building block on disadvantages is more than courtesy. The Pflege-Charta phrases it as a right:
Nobody may disadvantage you or treat you worse because of your complaint.
The ZQP describes the expectation of people in need of care in a very similar way: they can expect the handling of complaints and mistakes to be clearly regulated within the organization and responses to be quick (ZQP). A page that describes the route step by step makes this procedure visible to outsiders. For families with another first language, a short version in plain language is worthwhile, and for people with poor eyesight, a phone number at the very top of the page.
Data protection: health data in the feedback route
Complaints about care often contain health information: a fall, a missed dose of medication, a wound. Health data belongs to the special categories of personal data whose processing is prohibited in principle (Article 9(1) GDPR) unless an exception applies. One such exception is the explicit consent of the data subject for specified purposes (Article 9(2)(a) GDPR). This leads to four rules for the form:
- Privacy notes at the form: who is responsible, for what purpose the information is processed, who reads it and how long it is stored (Article 13 GDPR).
- Dedicated recipient address: complaints go to the responsible person and their deputy, not to a shared inbox read by the whole office.
- Secure transfer and storage: the form runs over HTTPS, and entries do not stay in the website backend permanently but move into the service's complaints log.
- Deletion concept: personal data may only be kept for as long as necessary for the purpose (Article 5(1)(e) GDPR). The service sets the retention period and states it in the notes.
One special point concerns the person on whose behalf someone complains. If a daughter writes about her mother's care, the service may not simply share details of the care with her. The Pflege-Charta tells people in need of care: your data may only be passed on if you have agreed to it (Pflege-Charta, Article 4). The call-back therefore first clarifies whether there is a power of attorney or consent. What other questions relatives ask about access to health data is covered in our article on the electronic patient record in care.
How privacy-friendly forms are built in detail is shown in our article on secure forms on care websites and on our service page Privacy for care websites.
Bringing the complaints route into daily work
- Write the procedure: who receives complaints, who deputizes, how is it documented, what reply time does the service promise? One page in the quality manual is enough to start.
- Build the page and form: text in plain language, three fields, confirmation page, acknowledgment by email and privacy notes.
- Link it: footer, contact page, information on the care contract and the admission folder with a short link or QR code.
- Involve the team: nurses know the route exists and mention it when relatives voice criticism during a visit. Verbal complaints go into the same log.
After the first few weeks, take a look at the entries: is feedback coming in through the form, is the service keeping its promise, and are topics recurring? If hardly any entries arrive, this can also be because the page is hard to find. A link at the top of the contact page and a mention in the admission interview then help.
We build the page on the complaints route and the feedback form as part of your care website: with a dedicated recipient address, encrypted transfer, hosting in Germany, a confirmation page and privacy notes. We agree the wording and the promised reply time with your care manager. If you would first like to clarify how the route fits into your processes, write to us via the contact page.
Sources and legal texts
Related Articles
ePA in care: what relatives want to know about access
The ePA in care: what the care service sees, who adds entries, how relatives object or act as representatives, and how a guide page answers these questions.
Employer reviews in care: responding to criticism calmly
Criticism of rosters or onboarding: how a care service replies to employer reviews without personal data and puts them in context on its careers page.
Whistleblower protection in home care: the online channel
Internal reporting office from 50 employees: how a care website carries the reporting route with its own page, a confidential form, deadlines and privacy notes.