Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Ms C complained that the board unreasonably failed to diagnose and treat the cause of her back pain. She had suffered chronic back pain since being involved in a motorbike accident a number of years previously. Ms C said that she had not been provided with a satisfactory resolution and explanation for her ongoing pain and she felt that the care and treatment she had received had been inadequate. Ms C said her mobility had been affected, and she continued to require to take strong pain medication.

We obtained independent medical advice from a trauma and orthopaedic consultant and a consultant neurologist. The advice we received was that both the orthopaedic and neurology care and treatment provided to Ms C was consistent and appropriate. The advisers did not identify failings in Ms C's care and treatment. We did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C underwent an operation to her thumb. Over a year later it had still not healed despite two further attempts to revise the scar and after a review by a second opinion. Ms C complained that the clinician concerned with her treatment then refused to treat her further, saying that the cause of the failure to heal was self-harming. Ms C further complained a second clinician refused to provide surgery to her knee even though imagery showed that it was suffering from degeneration.

Ms C raised her concerns with the board who took the view, overall, that Ms C had been treated appropriately, in accordance with guidance, and that the conclusions and decisions about her thumb had been reasonable.

We took independent clinical advice and found that the clinician involved had done all they could with regard to Ms C's thumb in an effort to get it to heal. They had investigated the circumstances to establish the reasons why it had failed to heal and it was not unreasonable to conclude that the recurrent breakdown of the scar was self-inflicted. With regard to Ms C's knee problems, the board had followed current national guidance not to offer surgery in such cases. We therefore did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained about the care and treatment provided to her late mother (Mrs A) by the medical practice. In particular, she complained that the practice delayed taking action which diagnosed Mrs A was suffering from pancreatic cancer. We took independent GP advice and found that the practice had acted promptly in referring Mrs A for specialist intervention and that there were no delays in sending the referrals. The medical records detailed that Mrs A was referred to hospital twice under the two-week cancer pathway. We did not uphold the complaint.

Ms C also raised concerns that the practice had failed to investigate Mrs A's abnormal liver function results taken in 2014. The advice we received was that the test results had not shown any deterioration until September 2015 and at that time the practice had acted reasonably in making an urgent referral to hospital. In view of the advice that the practice's response was reasonable, we did not uphold the complaint.

Ms C was also concerned that the practice had failed to take appropriate action on Mrs A's reported weight loss. The clinical records demonstrated that Mrs A had been referred for dietary advice and attended a dietician clinic, and the advice we received was that the referral had been made at an early stage. We were satisfied, based on the medical records and independent advice we received, that the practice responded appropriately to Mrs A's reported weight loss and we did not uphold the complaint.

Finally, Ms C complained that the practice failed to ensure appropriate palliative care was put in place for Mrs A at home. The advice we received was that, based on the medical records, the practice had not delayed in referring Mrs A to palliative care services and that the practice offered reasonable care. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the SPS had inappropriately failed to pay him the correct wage. He said his wage had been cut from £13 to £7.

The information available confirmed that Mr C had been receiving a weekly wage of £13 for working full time in the kitchen. However, he then transferred to another prison. He was returned from that prison a few weeks later because of poor behaviour and he was assigned a part-time role in the kitchen and he received a payment of £7 per week. Mr C was also able to supplement his wage through attending education.

We were satisfied the Mr C was being paid appropriately by the SPS in line with their wage earning policy and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had failed to follow relevant procedures to ensure his safety in a shared cell. In particular, he said that he should not have had to share a cell with a prisoner whom he alleged had attacked him. Mr C said that he had raised concerns about this prisoner but that no action was taken.

We were satisfied that, based on the available evidence, the SPS had followed the correct procedures prior to reaching their decision that Mr C was required to share a cell with another prisoner and that the situation was regularly assessed. We found no evidence that Mr C had raised concerns about the prisoner and did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C made a complaint about the manner in which his deceased brother's property was cleared from his home. Mr C was unhappy that an environmental clean had been conducted, meaning that many items were removed from his brother's property and not itemised in an inventory. He was unhappy about poor communication from staff and that the contractor conducting the environmental clean had left unsealed bins outside the property with his brother's belongings inside.

Though the council were the deceased's landlord, the company who were property managing the tenancy on the council's behalf responded to the complaint. They advised that their policy is that when an environmental risk is identified, a contractor is required to conduct a full environmental clean of the property, removing all items which are contaminated or present a risk. They apologised for the breakdown in communication and interviewed staff about alleged conversations with Mr C. They also apologised for the bins being left on the street and explained that the contractor had worked extra hours in an attempt to clear the property ahead of the family's visit to the property, and the bins were left outside as there was no more room on the van. This was deemed to be a failing of the contractor and an apology was made in response to Mr C's complaint to them.

We found that procedures had been followed regarding the environmental clean and it was not unreasonable that items which were contaminated or posed a risk were not recorded on an inventory. In this case, it was also recommended an environmental clean should take place as the deceased was diabetic, so there was a needle risk in the property.

As the communication between staff and Mr C arose during verbal conversations, we had no way of determining what was actually said. We found that it was a failing of the contractor to leave bins containing hazardous material on the street. However, we concluded that this was a situational error which had occurred due to a desire to clear the property in time for the family to visit and noted that Mr C had received an apology. We therefore did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had wrongly invoiced him for repairs to his TV aerial. He disputed the repair and complained to the council. They explained that sub-contractors had found that the problem Mr C had reported was with his TV equipment rather than the council communal aerial, and he was therefore liable for the charge. The council produced evidence in support of their position, indicating that the work had been carried out. We found no evidence in support of Mr C's claim and accordingly did not uphold his complaint.

Mr C also complained that the council's handling of his complaint was unreasonable. We did not find any failings in the council's complaints handling. They had responded appropriately and provided the relevant information. We therefore did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mrs C had a family history of DVT (deep venous thrombosis, a blood clot in a vein). During her pregnancy she suffered cramps and pain in her calves. She therefore underwent a scan of her right leg. This scan was clear but because she continued to complain of pain, Mrs C underwent a further scan. Mrs C said that the scan was of her left leg, although the board said it was of her right leg. After Mrs C gave birth, a further scan confirmed a pulmonary embolism (a clot in the blood vessel that transports blood to the heart and the lungs) and a DVT in her left leg.

Mrs C complained to the board that despite her many complaints, they did not refer her to haematology (the specialism concerned with the study of blood and blood-related disorders) and that they failed to properly carry out the second scan. In response, the board said that Mrs C should have been reviewed by a senior doctor and probably referred back for a further scan. However, Mrs C still felt that the scan had been carried out incorrectly.

We obtained independent haematology advice and found that although scans were a good diagnostic tool for DVT of the upper leg, they were not as reliable for the calf. We found that an examination had not shown evidence of a clot in Mrs C's lower leg. Furthermore, the scan about which Mrs C complained had been carried out in a reasonable way and Mrs C had been reviewed on three occasions during the five days after this scan. Despite the board's own conclusion, we found that the management and care received by Mrs C following her scan was reasonable. We therefore did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained about the care and treatment provided to her late mother (Mrs A) by her GP practice. Mrs A had hypertension (high blood pressure) and was prescribed multiple medications for this. Ms C expressed concern that this medication was not reviewed, despite it failing to control Mrs A's blood pressure. Ms C felt that this contributed to Mrs A suffering kidney failure and heart problems.

We took independent GP advice and found that Mrs A had multiple health conditions, and that her treatment and blood pressure control were complex. The adviser noted that some of her medication was serving a dual purpose, such as controlling her blood pressure and fluid overload. The adviser considered that the practice took appropriate steps to monitor Mrs A, including active assessment of her hypertension and regular blood tests. They explained that the number of underlying conditions made it difficult to control Mrs A's blood pressure, but were satisfied that the difficulties were not due to a lack of care on the part of the practice. We accepted this advice and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the board incorrectly diagnosed her as suffering from bi-polar disorder when she was admitted to hospital in 2004. She was also unhappy that they prescribed sodium valproate which she did not consider should be prescribed to someone of childbearing age.

Although this complaint related to issues which occurred some years ago and would usually be considered to be time-barred in terms of a complaint to our office, as the board had reviewed the medical records last year and advised Ms C that the treatment provided was appropriate, we agreed to look at the diagnosis and decision to prescribe.

We obtained independent advice from two advisers, one of whom reviewed the records for the period of Ms C's admission. We were satisfied that a reasonable diagnosis was made in 2004 and the decision to prescribe sodium valproate to Ms C was reasonable. As a result, we did not uphold the complaints.