Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his wife (Mrs A) that her medical practice failed to refer her to hospital for an audiology review as agreed during an earlier consultation. The practice apologised, but advised that the GP involved had no recollection of this agreement, nor was it recorded in Mrs A's medical notes. As we could find no additional evidence to allow us to conclude whether or not a referral was agreed, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the accuracy of a report which was written following a meeting attended by his ex-wife, a member of the child and adult mental health services, and staff from his son's school. Mr C felt that the report gave an inaccurate description of his behaviour and he was concerned that his ex-wife might produce the report in legal proceedings and that he would have to defend it.

We took independent advice from an adviser in mental health services and concluded that the report was factually accurate in that the information which was recorded had been discussed during the meeting. However, we could understand that the report could be interpreted differently by its readers as it was not entirely clear that the information discussed in the meeting was the opinions of those involved rather than actual facts. We noted that the board had clarified the issue in their response to Mr C's complaint. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained to the board about the care and treatment she received when she was admitted for elective hip replacement surgery at Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary.

Mrs C recalled feeling pain before the procedure finished, known as breakthrough pain, and complained to us about the level of anaesthesia she was given during surgery. We took independent advice from an anaesthetic adviser, who was satisfied that that both the type and dose of anaesthetic and sedative drugs used were appropriate in this case. They did not find a record of breakthrough pain in the notes, and they could not confirm what action might have been taken in response to this. As the evidence available was not conclusive about the reported episode of breakthrough pain, we could not conclude that there was a failure to document pain and the use of top-up anaesthetic. We did not uphold this complaint.

Mrs C also raised concerns that staff did not maintain reasonable records following the operation, and that the records failed to reflect that she was in pain. We received independent advice from an adviser in general medicine and a nursing adviser. The general medicine adviser was satisfied that the frequency and detail of the entries in the records by medical staff was in accordance with normal practice, and they considered that the record-keeping was reasonable. The nursing adviser found that the nursing records had been maintained to a reasonable standard and were in accordance with the professional code of practice. We concluded that the record-keeping was reasonable and we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained about the treatment her young daughter (Miss A) received from a doctor when she took her to the emergency department at Borders General Hospital. Miss A had been taken to see her GP the previous day with a suspected chest infection. The GP had prescribed antibiotics and told Ms C to take Miss A to the emergency department if her condition deteriorated. Ms C said that she was dissatisfied with the assessment carried out by the doctor at the emergency department, who recommended that Ms C take her daughter home to allow the antibiotics prescribed by the GP to work. Ms C asked that Miss A have a paediatric review. This was arranged and, after spending some hours in a ward, Miss A was discharged home with a supply of steroid medication. Ms C complained to us that the doctor in the emergency department failed to provide Miss A with an appropriate assessment and a reasonable level of care.

We took independent advice from a consultant in emergency medicine. We found that the doctor in the emergency department had documented a detailed history of Miss A's illness and medical history and that it was reasonable for them to have suggested that Miss A be discharged home to allow the antibiotics time to work. The doctor initially diagnosed that Miss A had a lower respiratory tract infection and had phoned a paediatric doctor for advice before making the decision to discharge Miss A home. The diagnosis was further refined to that of bronchiolitis (a viral illness). When Ms C voiced her concerns, it was arranged for Miss A to spend some hours in a paediatric ward where she was observed and then discharged home with steroid medication and to allow time for the GP prescribed antibiotics to take effect. We concluded that the doctor in the emergency department carried out an appropriate assessment of Miss A and that she received an appropriate level of care and treatment. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the university’s investigation of her complaint about aspects of the course she was on was unreasonable.

The university proposed a number of specific points of complaint to Ms C, and she accepted them as the basis for her complaint. Given this, the university made enquiries that related to the specific points of complaint, and not to other ancillary issues Ms C raised. We found that the university’s approach to their investigation was reasonable in the circumstances, as was the university’s response to Ms C. We did not uphold Ms C’s complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that, as a protection prisoner, he was not being given reasonable opportunities to apply for a work party with enhanced wages. He specifically noted that a new enhanced work party had been created and two protection prisoners had joined this, without the opportunity being opened up to all protection prisoners.

The prison explained that the new work party was previously being run as an education class and a decision was taken to convert it to a work party on account of the work that was being produced. As such, it was considered appropriate to offer the roles to existing members of the education class who were already carrying out the work.

We were satisfied that this was a discretionary decision that the prison were entitled to take. The prison assured us that any future vacancies on the work party would be advertised. We concluded that the prison acted reasonably in the circumstances and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that he was not given the opportunity to apply for a position within a new work party that was created in his prison because the post was not advertised. He said that this was contrary to the labour allocation policy procedures. Mr C also raised concerns that the wage earning policy did not cover the amount that was being paid to the work party.

We found that, while it is local practice at this prison to advertise vacancies, it is not mandatory. In addition, the Scottish Prison Service has confirmed that because of the success of a former education class, a decision was taken by the prison's management team to ensure consistency and offer the full time positions to those already carrying out these duties. We concluded that this was a discretionary decision the prison staff were entitled to make and we considered their actions reasonable.

We also found that there was no evidence that the prison failed to follow the guidance in place for the work party's rate of earnings and bonuses.

Summary

Mr C complained that upon transferring from one prison to another, an item of his property went missing. He reported this to the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) but felt that they failed to appropriately investigate the matter. SPS noted that the item was not on Mr C's property card. Mr C did not see how this was possible, noting that he had been using the item in his cell for over three years.

SPS informed us that Mr C could have been using the item without it forming part of his formal property. They explained that prisoners often share or exchange items, or donate items to other prisoners prior to being liberated, and that these practices went on outwith the recognised property process. They acknowledged that the matter was investigated under their complaints process when it should have been considered in line with their claim process. Nonetheless, they were satisfied that the matter had been appropriately investigated.

We considered that the evidence demonstrated that the SPS thoroughly investigated the whereabouts of the missing item. While we noted that the recognised lost property claim process was not utilised, we were satisfied that the issues raised were thoroughly explored. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C had a new heating system installed by a contractor working on behalf of the Scottish Government. Mrs C complained that the contractor required her to lift additional flooring in her home, which was not agreed at the pre-installation survey.

We found that while the need to lift additional flooring was not agreed at the survey, Mrs C signed a document on the day of the survey which stated that it was her responsibility to lift any specialist flooring. The document also stated that while every care would be taken to keep upheaval to a minimum, it might not be possible to carry out the installation without removing some of the flooring. In addition, the document stated that the contractor would not accept responsibility or be held liable for any damage to the flooring arising from the installation.

When the installation team visited, they found that Mrs C needed to lift more flooring than she originally thought. Although Mrs C was not expecting this, the paperwork she signed meant Mrs C was responsible for lifting the flooring should she want the installation to go ahead. We also noted that the contractor offered to replace the flooring in one of Mrs C's rooms as a gesture of goodwill. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C's neighbours applied for and were granted by Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) a licence to discharge treated sewage effluent into a ditch on their property. Mrs C complained that this allowed discharge into a ditch that runs dry and causes dangerous pollution to be deposited on her land and severely impacts on her enjoyment of her property as well as having a dangerous adverse effect on human and animal health. SEPA could find no evidence of such a nuisance being caused.

Mrs C felt that SEPA did not do enough to assess the application and had not done enough to address her concerns about the actual operation of the scheme.

We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint as we concluded SEPA had taken reasonable steps to minimise the risk of a nuisance and were not the responsible body for enforcing such a nuisance (though we noted no nuisance had actually yet been proven to exist).