Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mrs C complained to us on behalf of her husband (Mr A) about dental treatment he had received from the practice. Mr A went to his dentist regarding a tooth that was causing him pain. The tooth was x-rayed and subsequently filled. Mr A experienced severe pain overnight after having the filling, and booked an emergency appointment for the following day. At the appointment, Mr A was seen by a different dentist. The dentist performed an extraction of the tooth. Mr A complained to the practice and said that he did not consent to having his tooth extracted. Mr A said he had discussed with his previous dentist that if the filling was not effective, then a root treatment would be the next course of action. Mr A said he would not have wanted his tooth extracted because there was already a missing tooth next to it. Mr A also complained that he had been told the level of bleeding he experienced was normal and he did not agree with this.

We took independent advice from a dentist and found that the dental records indicated that the dentist did consult with and obtain consent from Mr A. The adviser also confirmed that Mr A was correctly advised regarding bleeding. As a result of Mr A's complaint, the practice have included the extraction of wisdom teeth in the list of procedures that require written consent. Our investigation found that the practice did not fail to obtain consent to extract Mr A's tooth and that they correctly advised him regarding the level of bleeding following a tooth extraction. We therefore did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care and treatment provided to him at the A&E department of Queen Elizabeth University Hospital. Mr C said that when he attended with chest and back pain and shortness of breath he was told he was suffering from muscular pain and given painkillers. Mr C attended again two months later and was diagnosed with pulmonary embolism (PE - a blockage of the artery that carries oxygen between the heart and lungs). Mr C complained that he had not been properly assessed on his first attendance and that the doctor had focused on the fact that he had been to the gym the night before. He said that he felt the diagnosis of PE was missed and that the delay may have led to permanent damage.

During our investigation, we took independent advice from an A&E consultant. We found that the diagnosis of muscular pain made when Mr C first attended A&E was consistent with his reported symptoms and the observations carried out. The adviser said that whilst there appeared to have been some small areas of moderate damage to Mr C's lungs, it was not possible to state that this was due to a failure to diagnose him with PE at an earlier point. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained about the care and treatment provided to her mother (Mrs A) at Queen Elizabeth University Hospital. Mrs A was admitted with back pain and faecal incontinence and was discharged after three days. Two days later, Mrs A was admitted to another hospital where she died three days after her admission. Miss C complained that her mother's discharge from Queen Elizabeth University Hospital had been inappropriate.

We took independent advice from a consultant orthopaedic surgeon, a consultant neurosurgeon, and a consultant gastroenterologist. The advice we received from the orthopaedic adviser was that the orthopaedic team caring for Mrs A had carried out all reasonable and appropriate tests and investigations during her admission, which included obtaining advice from the neurosurgery team. Mrs A had been assessed appropriately before discharge to ensure it was safe for her to go home.

The neurosurgery adviser did not identify any failings on the part of the neurosurgery team in the advice they gave to the orthopaedic team.

We also sought advice from a gastroenterology consultant, given that Mrs A's liver function test results were found to be abnormal. The advice we received was that the test results had been discussed appropriately with Mrs A's GP. It was established they had not worsened since previous tests and an out-patient referral had already been arranged. The decision to discharge Mrs A was reasonable.

Taking account of the evidence and the advice we received, we did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C, who works for an advocacy and support agency, complained on behalf of her client (Mr A) about the care and treatment provided by the practice to his late wife, (Mrs A). Ms C complained that the practice missed an opportunity to diagnose Mrs A with pancreatic cancer and that they failed to send her for a scan.

During our investigation, we took independent advice from a GP adviser. We found that the symptoms Mrs A had presented with were not consistent with pancreatic cancer and, therefore, there was nothing that would alert the practice to the need to arrange further investigations or scans. Therefore, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C, who works for an advocacy and support agency, complained on behalf of her client (Mr A) about the care and treatment provided by the board to his late wife (Mrs A). Ms C complained that there was an avoidable delay in the board diagnosing Mrs A with pancreatic cancer and that there was a delay in carrying out a scan.

During our investigation we took independent advice from a medical adviser. We found that the actions of the board had been reasonable and that there was no delay in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer as Mrs A had not been presenting with symptoms which would alert clinicians to a suspicion of this diagnosis. We also found that it was reasonable that a scan was arranged on an out-patient basis and there was no undue delay in carrying out the scan. Therefore, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C has suffered from diabetes for some years. He recently changed GP practice and said his life and health had improved dramatically since moving to a new practice. He complained that his old practice failed to manage his diabetes care and treatment appropriately and that this may have contributed to him suffering liver damage.

We reviewed the care and treatment provided to Mr C for the management of both his diabetes and his liver. We considered the medical records and took independent advice from a GP and from a nursing adviser qualified in specialist diabetes care. Both advisers were satisfied that the practice had taken appropriate steps to monitor Mr C's condition and to attempt to manage his care. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained in his own right and on behalf of a fellow student (Ms A). He complained that the university failed to provide parts of the course as stated on the university website and in course handbooks.

We found the website did not categorically state that the specific points raised by Mr C and Ms A were core parts of the course. However, the wording was unclear and, in response to Mr C and Ms A's complaint, the university acted reasonably by removing the unclear wording. We also found that what Mr C and Ms A said was advertised but not provided was, in fact, available to students. Mr C and Ms A said they were disappointed in the standard of the course, in particular module content, and how the course was described in the module handbook compared to what was actually delivered. We found that all modules were delivered as part of the accredited programme. In terms of what specific subject matter was taught, we explained to Mr C and Ms A that we cannot investigate the exercise of academic judgement, therefore, we could not reach a finding on the specific academic issues they raised. We did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained about the university's handling of his complaint, and about financial redress offered to him by the university.

We found that the university considered all relevant events that led to Mr C's complaint, as well as relevant evidence from Mr C and from university staff and records. Mr C disagreed with the university's conclusion but that disagreement, of itself, was not evidence of an administrative failing by the university.

The university accepted that they took too long to deal with Mr C's complaint. In responding to Mr C, the university apologised for and explained the delay, and they took steps to prevent a similar situation from happening again.

The university offered financial redress for periods of Mr C's study that were affected by failings they identified, rather than the whole period of study as Mr C wanted. We concluded that the university's offer was reasonable in the circumstances. Mr C requested that the money be paid directly to him, however, the university intended to pay the money directly to Mr C's financial sponsor. We concluded that the university's decision to do this was also reasonable in the circumstances. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the MySQA service provided to her daughter (Ms A) was unreasonable. This was because, in Mrs C's opinion, SQA should have emailed Ms A's amended results directly to her via the MySQA service, and updated Ms A's MySQA page on the date the amended results were issued.

We found that information published by SQA stated that, at the time of the main national release of results in early August, they would be issued directly to candidates. However, individual results amended after a priority marking review would be issued to schools in late August. The SQA information did not say that amended results would be issued directly to candidates, or that MySQA pages would be updated on the date the amended results were issued. It appeared Mrs C's complaint was based on her assumptions and preferences about what should happen, which were contrary to SQA's published information. It would not be reasonable to hold SQA responsible for Mrs C's assumptions, or reasonable to expect SQA to state what their service would not do, when they stated what their service would do. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council's Trading Standards department failed to take action against a motor trader in respect of his complaint.

Mr C was unhappy with the condition of a vehicle he purchased and later shipped outside the UK. He was also concerned that the vehicle registration document and a vehicle inspection certificate were not provided. After complaining to the trader, Mr C contacted Trading Standards. Mr C was of the view that Trading Standards were responsible for taking action under the Road Traffic Act 1998 (RTA) and the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

The council explained to Mr C and us that Trading Standards were not empowered to prosecute traders for a breach of Section 75 of the RTA. In addition, the police told Mr C that the RTA only applied to vehicles driven in Britain. The council also explained that Trading Standards could, following the evaluation of relevant, robust and corroborated evidence, make a report suggesting prosecution to the Procurator Fiscal Service (PFS), but that the decision on whether or not to prosecute lay with the PFS and not Trading Standards. In this case, Trading Standards determined that Mr C did not provide them with sufficient evidence upon which to bring or suggest a prosecution, and they explained to Mr C the type of evidence they would need to consider this.

Trading Standards advised Mr C that his best recourse was to follow the guidance of Citizens Advice Scotland on a problem with a used car. Mr C did not accept the council's explanations and advice but his disagreement, of itself, was not evidence of a failing by Training Standards.

We concluded that the actions of the council were reasonable and proportionate to the issues Mr C brought to Trading Standards and therefore we did not uphold his complaint.