Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that the practice had failed to act appropriately on his reported symptoms of imbalance. Mr C has diabetes and related diabetic neuropathy (nerve damage). He said that over a long period he had complained to the practice of imbalance and falls but that this had always been attributed to his diabetic neuropathy. Mr C was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS - a disease that effects the nervous system) and told us that he felt GPs at the practice should have picked up on this diagnosis earlier.

In investigating this complaint, we took independent GP advice. We found that Mr C had complained to the practice of imbalance on two occasions. On the first occasion, this was attributed to the existing diagnosis of diabetic neuropathy, and we found this to be reasonable. On the second occasion, six years later, Mr C was thoroughly examined and no features of concern were found. Mr C was told to return if his symptoms changed, but this was the last time he was assessed by the practice. We found that the symptoms which later led to his diagnosis of MS seven years after his initial examination were not present during the previous two appointments and that the practice had acted appropriately. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the board delayed in determining that he had multiple sclerosis (MS - a disease that effects the nervous system). Mr C said that he has diabetes and had regularly attended a diabetic clinic with the board to review his diabetic peripheral neuropathy (nerve damage). However, Mr C said he had repeatedly complained of poor balance to the board but that they had failed to find that he had MS despite his symptoms.

In investigating this complaint, we took independent medical advice. We found that Mr C had often reported pain to board staff and this was treated in line with diabetic neuropathy. We also found that when Mr C presented with dizziness it was reasonable for the board to rule out any cardiac causes. Our investigation found that when Mr C's condition was noticed to be deteriorating, he was appropriately and quickly referred to a consultant neurologist. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care and treatment he received from his medical practice. Mr C had been admitted to hospital to receive treatment for chronic liver disease. When he was discharged from hospital, the medication he was prescribed was a lower dosage than he had been taking previously. Mr C raised concerns that the medication he was prescribed by the practice prior to admission was excessive.

We took independent medical advice. We found that Mr C's medication had changed whilst he was in hospital because his condition had changed. The adviser explained that medications are often reviewed or withdrawn when patients are in hospital settings, yet this does not mean that the pre-existing medication was either incorrect or excessive in dosage. We did not find evidence that Mr C had been prescribed excessive medication and for this reason we did not uphold this aspect of his complaint.

Mr C also raised concerns that appropriate investigations were not arranged when he reported pain in his chest and back to GPs at the practice. Mr C was subsequently diagnosed with osteoporosis (a condition that affects the bones, causing them to become fragile and more likely to break), but felt he should have received treatment for this condition sooner. We found that the practice had initially referred Mr C for acupuncture, and that this was because he had a history of pain following a previous injury and had received acupuncture previously. We found this to be reasonable and did not consider that there was a clinical indication that Mr C had osteoporosis until he attended a consultation around three months later. At this consultation, an x-ray was arranged, which confirmed Mr C's diagnosis. The practice then prescribed Mr C two medications to help protect his bones.

We considered that the practice investigated Mr C's condition reasonably and provided appropriate treatment. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

We noted that the practice had acknowledged that they had not handled Mr C's complaint fully in accordance with the 'Can I help you?' guidance for handling healthcare complaints. While we were critical of this, we found that the practice had undertaken a significant event review and we were satisfied that the practice had taken steps to identify what went wrong and learn from this shortcoming. We therefore made no recommendations.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the medical practice with regards to the care and treatment provided to her husband (Mr A). Mrs C said that the GP failed to ensure that Mr A's diagnosis of a rare type of cancer was followed up and that had the GP acted differently, Mr A would have been offered earlier treatment.

We took independent medical advice from a GP. We found that the practice had not been told that the diagnosis of cancer was definitive, but rather that it had been communicated as a 'suspicion of diagnosis'. We found that there was no obligation for the practice to record this if it was not definitive. Additionally, we found that it was not the practice's responsibility to ensure that further tests and reviews were being carried out as this was the responsibility of secondary care. Therefore we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that staff at University Hospital Crosshouse failed to provide her father (Mr A) with appropriate clinical treatment following his admission with abdominal pain. Mr A was diagnosed with cholangitis (an infection of the tube connecting the liver to the duodenum, the first part of the small intestine immediately beyond the stomach) and an ERCP (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, a procedure where a flexible tube is passed into the small intestine) was performed on Mr A four days later. Mr A suffered a retroperitoneal perforation (a small tear in the upper bowel) during the ERCP. Mr A's condition deteriorated and he died.

We obtained independent advice from a consultant gastroenterologist and a consultant general surgeon.

The consultant gastroenterologist explained that an ERCP was the appropriate procedure in Mr A's case, as verified by the British Society of Gastroenterology and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. They explained that the procedure was carried out appropriately, was documented as being relatively straightforward and was well tolerated by Mr A. However, they said Mr A suffered a recognised complication of an ERCP. Both advisers said that although Mr A's perforation was not detected as soon as it could have been, the management of Mr A's condition would not have changed with an earlier diagnosis. The consultant general surgeon confirmed that the time taken to diagnose the perforation was not due to poor practice. We therefore did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Miss C was unhappy with the honours classification of her degree. She complained to us about the university's handling of her academic appeal.

The classification decision was a matter of academic judgement for the university, which could be challenged using the academic appeals process and was not in our jurisdiction. However, we noted that evidence provided by the university indicated Miss C's degree classification was based on her overall academic performance, and was not affected by administrative issues she raised.

We found that the university dealt with Miss C's appeal in line with their regulations. There was evidence that Miss C's appeal submission was considered carefully and the relevant university sub-committee reached a view on it, as they were entitled to. We understood why Miss C disagreed with the outcome reached by the sub-committee, but there was no evidence to dispute that outcome, and her disagreement was not evidence of maladministration. In the absence of maladministration, we could not question the merits of the university's decision. We did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C, an MP, complained on behalf of her constituent (Ms A). The complaint was that the university's promotional material about a degree course was unreasonable, as Ms A felt she was not told that her degree would not help her with her chosen career.

We found that, while technically correct, the university's information was ambiguous. In dealing with the complaint, the university admitted their website could have been clearer and changed their published information to clarify it. In addition, the university offered Ms A a goodwill payment.

While Ms A's circumstances were unfortunate, in our view there was no certainty she could have achieved more from the university's handling of her complaint, and we found that the university acted reasonably to clarify the information. On balance, we concluded that the university's promotional material about the degree was reasonable. We therefore did not uphold Ms A's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that prison staff had inappropriately opened an item of his mail. Prison staff may open mail sent to prisoners when they consider they have reasonable cause to do so. However, the prison told us that staff had not opened the item of mail. We did not consider that there was sufficient evidence that staff had opened the mail and therefore we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained that staff had searched him with unreasonable frequency. The searching of prisoners is a discretionary issue for prison staff. We are unable to question discretionary decisions made by prison staff unless there is evidence of maladministration. In the absence of this, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C complained that the prison had reduced his wages. We found that although there had been a considerable reduction in Mr C's wages, this had been due to a reduction in the hours he worked, to his original role having been made redundant and replaced with a new role, and to a prisoner wage review. We were satisfied that Mr C was being paid the appropriate rate for his job in the prison. We did not uphold the complaint.

Finally, Mr C complained about the member of staff appointed to chair two of his internal complaints committees. We found that this had been a discretionary decision for the prison to make, and we therefore did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that following an incident involving another pupil, the school failed to put in support for her son, particularly after the other pupil returned to the school following an exclusion. She was also unhappy with the communication from the school following the incident and, in particular, what she felt was the school's failure to listen to her son's concerns.

We could not comment on whether or not the excluded pupil should return to school as this was a disciplinary matter which fell outwith our jurisdiction. We did find, however, that the school had communicated reasonably with Ms C and her family, from the time of the incident, and had put measures in place to support Ms C's son, in terms of minimising the risk of both pupils meeting, through support from staff and through the offer of counselling.

As a result of the actions taken by the school, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy with the level of insulation in his new home and that his garden was being accessed by neighbours. He also made allegations of anti-social behaviour by his neighbours and was unhappy with the level of action taken by council staff to address this.

We concluded that the council had made a number of improvements to Mr C's property but that it was not suitable for underfloor heating, which he wished to have. We found evidence that the council had responded to the issues which they said were reported to them, although Mr C said that he had reported further issues. Overall we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.