Not upheld, no recommendations

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.

Summary

Mr C said that although he attended his medical practice concerning his back pain on a number of occasions over a period of two months, doctors failed to note his deteriorating condition. He said that he was given increasingly strong painkillers which failed to work and that although he was exhibiting 'red flag' symptoms, he was not referred for further investigation or imaging. Mr C said that it was not until he attended with his son that he was taken seriously and admitted to hospital as an emergency. He required an immediate operation.

Mr C complained to the practice who said that while they noted that he was in significant pain, Mr C did not show any symptoms or clinical signs that would have triggered an immediate referral for surgery (there were no red flags). They believed that he had been treated appropriately and in accordance with guidance.

We took independent advice from a GP and found that the practice had carried out appropriate examinations. Mr C's pain was regularly reviewed and his painkillers were increased accordingly. They repeatedly checked Mr C for red flag symptoms and an appropriate referral was made for him when his symptoms changed. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained about the care and treatment provided to her mother (Mrs A) by her GP practice. A GP visited Mrs A's home and following an examination, the GP considered that Mrs A had an upper respiratory tract infection. Her condition did not improve following the GP's visit and her family took her to hospital. Further examinations in hospital identified that Mrs A had pneumonia, and she died a number of days following admission.

Ms C raised a number of concerns about the home visit carried out by the GP, and felt that an x-ray should have been arranged and antibiotics prescribed. We took independent GP advice and found that the GP's assessment was reasonable. We noted that the GP had documented a detailed history and examination of Mrs A, and that their observations were consistent with a viral infection such that antibiotics were not necessary at that time. The adviser also said that there was no clinical indication for a chest x-ray as Mrs A's symptoms and signs were not consistent with a likely diagnosis of pneumonia. The adviser noted that the GP had also provided advice on what to do if Mrs A's condition became worse. Overall, we found that the GP had provided reasonable care and treatment. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Ms C also expressed concern that the GP failed to arrange hospital admission given Mrs A's symptoms. While we noted that Mrs A was subsequently admitted to hospital where she was diagnosed with pneumonia, the adviser did not consider that Mrs A's recorded symptoms at the time of the GP visit were consistent with pneumonia, and did not consider that there was an indication that Mrs A needed to be admitted to hospital at this time. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained to us that that the board had delayed in diagnosing that she had Crohn's disease (a long-term condition that causes inflammation of the lining of the digestive system). Mrs C had significant symptoms of abdominal pain, diarrhoea and significant and progressive weight loss and had undergone a number of tests arranged by the board in relation to this. No diagnosis was made and Mrs C asked for a second opinion. She was referred to Wishaw General Hospital. Further tests were carried out, but it was not considered that there was evidence to support a diagnosis of Crohn's disease. Mrs C then attended a private hospital, where a diagnosis of Crohn's disease was made. Mrs C told us that a surgeon at the private hospital looked at a scan carried out at Wishaw General Hospital and found that it showed she had an abnormality in her bowel, which had not been identified by the board.

We took independent advice from a gastroenterology consultant and from a consultant radiologist. We found that the investigations carried out by the board in response to Mrs C's symptoms had been appropriate, thorough and timely. Although one of the tests had not been fully completed, it had been reasonable not to repeat the test, as other appropriate tests had been arranged. The scans carried out by the board did not show any significant abnormalities. We considered that the actions of the board had been reasonable and that there was no clear evidence of any failings or undue delays. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the treatment provided to him during attendances at West Glasgow Minor Injuries Unit, Yorkhill and then at the emergency department of Queen Elizabeth University Hospital. Mr C had sustained an injury to his right calf muscle and he said that it was only following a subsequent admission to the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, a day after his initial admission there, that he was diagnosed and treated for pulmonary embolism (a blockage in a blood vessel in the lungs) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT).

We obtained independent advice from a consultant in emergency medicine who said that the symptoms Mr C presented with at West Glasgow Minor Injuries Unit, Yorkhill were consistent with him having sustained a calf muscle tear and not a venous thrombosis. They found that the treatment provided to Mr C was appropriate.

With regards to Mr C's attendance at Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, the adviser said that medical staff had rightly suspected that Mr C may have had a pulmonary embolism and he was offered appropriate tests in order to diagnose this. However, it was recorded in the medical records that Mr C had declined these tests and opted to go home because the tests involved the use of needles to which Mr C had a severe phobia. It was further recorded that Mr C was judged as having capacity to make this decision. We received further advice that when Mr C was admitted to the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital the following day there had been changes in his clinical condition. The adviser found no failings in Mr C's treatment.

We were satisfied we had not seen evidence that there were any unreasonable failures to provide Mr C with appropriate clinical treatment for his reported symptoms of leg pain and we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Ms C, who works for an advocacy and support agency, complained on behalf of Mrs A about the care Mrs A received at the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital. Specifically, she complained about a delay in a scan being carried out, the temperature of the room Mrs A was in and that Mrs A's food and fluid intake were not adequately monitored.

We took independent advice from a consultant physician and a nursing adviser. We found no clear reason why Mrs A had been on bed rest which would have placed her at risk of loss of muscle tone. However, this did not appear to have had a significant impact on her, nor did we consider there was any undue delay in scanning her knee. We did not identify evidence related to the room temperature being unreasonably cold. We acknowledged the board had taken steps to address the provision of food and concluded that Mrs A's fluid and nutrition intake were reasonably assessed and monitored during her admission. We did not uphold Ms C's complaints.