Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Ms C, who works for an advocacy and support agency, complained on behalf of her client (Mr A) that there had been an unreasonable delay in the GP practice referring Mr A for further assessment and advice when he attended with on-going abdominal pain and diarrhoea. Mr A had undergone a colonoscopy (an examination of the bowel with a camera on a flexible tube) in hospital several months earlier and had been diagnosed with diverticulosis (small pouches that stick out from the wall of the gut). He had then had a bowel screening test, which showed blood in his bowel motion and his health board had written to him to say that they would arrange another colonoscopy.

Mr A then attended the practice with abdominal pains and diarrhoea. He was prescribed medication and it was recorded that he was hoping to have a repeat colonoscopy from the board. He attended the practice again four weeks later and they sent a routine referral to the board asking for advice about whether he needed further investigation. Mr A was subsequently diagnosed with bowel cancer, which had spread to his liver and lungs.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that the practice had provided a reasonable standard of care to Mr A when he attended with abdominal pains and diarrhoea. The on-going investigation by the board into Mr A's bowel problems fell outwith the practice's remit. It was also reasonable for the practice to send a routine referral to the board asking for advice. We did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C had low abdominal and pelvic pain and was referred to a gynaecology clinic. She attended two appointments with the same clinician but complained that she was not treated or cared for appropriately and that she should have had a biopsy due to her family history. She also complained that the examining equipment at each appointment had not been fitted with a protective sleeve. She also complained that communication at the two appointments had been unreasonable.

We took independent advice from a consultant in obstetrics and gynaecology. We found that while an ultrasound scan at Ms C's first appointment had shown a small fibroid in the wall of her uterus, this was not cancerous and she was appropriately advised. She was given medication for her presenting symptoms and was to attend in two months' time. At her second appointment, we established that her treating clinician suggested a laparoscopy as her symptoms remained and while Ms C had not wanted this and wanted a biopsy, this would not have been the appropriate treatment. We found no evidence that a protective sleeve had not been used nor evidence of poor communication. We did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that a blood test that can detect heart damage was not carried out on her son (Mr A) when he attended A&E at Glasgow Royal Infirmary. Mrs C said she made the ambulance crew aware of an extensive family history of heart trouble and that they indicated that, in the circumstances, the blood test would be carried out. However, Mr A was discharged later the same day without the test having been carried out. He died just over three weeks later as a result of a problem with his heart.

The board noted that the ambulance record described Mr A's presenting complaint as non-traumatic back pain. They found no evidence that Mr A had not received appropriate treatment in light of his presenting symptoms.

We took independent medical advice from an emergency medicine consultant, who noted from the records that hospital staff requested and recorded appropriate information. The adviser considered that reasonable action was taken in response to this and that sufficient symptoms, or other factors, did not exist to prompt the blood test to be carried out. It was noted that the ambulance record did not document a family history of heart trouble and, when Mr A was asked about this, an extensive history was not given. We therefore did not conclude that the blood test was unreasonably omitted and did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that he received inadequate care for problems with his testicles. He also said his complaints about this matter had not been responded to reasonably. The board said they had provided Mr C with a reasonable standard of care and treatment and responded to his complaints appropriately.

We took independent medical advice. We found that Mr C had been examined on a number of occasions by doctors at the prison health centre. The medical records showed that at each review, the appropriate action was taken in response to the doctors' findings. When a problem was identified with Mr C's testicles, he was referred for specialist review immediately.

We found there was no evidence that Mr C's care and treatment was not of a reasonable standard. We also found no evidence Mr C's complaints had not been responded to appropriately.

Summary

Mr C complained that he was not provided with reasonable psychiatric treatment during his time in prison. In particular, he complained that he was not seen by a psychiatrist when he asked to be and that he was not given appropriate medication.

We took independent psychiatric advice. We found that during the time period Mr C was complaining about, he was seen by a mental health nurse on 17 occasions and by two different psychiatrists on 13 occasions. We considered the assessments and examinations carried out to have been reasonable and noted that Mr C's medication was prescribed reasonably and appropriately monitored. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that a GP failed to carry out a reasonable assessment when she attended the board's out-of-hours service. The GP carried out an assessment and discharged her, stating that she probably had a non-specific viral illness. Ms C was admitted to hospital approximately 24 hours later and was subsequently diagnosed with a different condition.

We took independent advice from a medical adviser. We found that the assessment carried out by the GP had been appropriate for the symptoms described by Ms C. We also found that it had been reasonable for the GP to consider that Ms C had a non-specific viral illness. Although Ms C said that she had not been asked about her medical history, the GP said that they had asked Ms C about this but had not recorded her response. We found that if the response was negative and not relevant, it would have been reasonable for the GP not to have recorded it. It had also been reasonable not to refer Ms C to hospital and there was no evidence that the delay in diagnosis of Ms C's condition was a result of unreasonable practice by the GP. We did not identify failings by the out-of-hours service and we considered that the care provided by the GP was of a reasonable standard. We therefore did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the university failed to follow the relevant procedure in marking her dissertation. She said that the second marker should not have been able to see the first marker's comments and that the second marker had simply agreed with the first marker's comments.

We found that the university's guidance did allow for the second marker to see the first marker's comments in some cases. Whilst the second marker's comments were brief, we did not consider that this amounted to unreasonable practice and therefore we did not uphold the complaint.

Ms C also complained that the university failed to consider bias in dealing with her appeal. We found that the issue of bias was considered during the consideration of her appeal and that the decision made by the university on this was not unreasonable. We therefore did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Ms C complained that the university failed to agree to her request for a third marker. In their response to us on this matter, the university said that the appeal did not establish any procedural irregularity in the marking of Ms C's dissertation and that there were therefore no grounds for appointing an additional marker. They also stated that the appointment of an additional marker would have been contrary to their procedures and would have meant inconsistency of treatment for students. We considered that the university's decision on this matter was reasonable and we did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Finally, Ms C complained that the university unreasonably decided that her appeal was about academic judgement. We found that the university had clarified to Ms C that did they did not consider the appeal to be a challenge to academic judgement. We did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the college did not offer her daughter (Ms A) a place on a course.

We found that when Ms A applied for the course, she was given a conditional offer. College staff assessed Ms A's performance and found that she failed to meet the offer conditions for the place on the course. College staff met with Ms A, at which time she agreed that her application for the course should be withdrawn and that she would consider applying for the following year after gaining more experience. Additionally, the college offered Ms A advice on how to do this. We therefore did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that there had been a lack of action by the college in response to allegations of bullying she had made concerning another student. After investigating Mrs C's complaint, the college confirmed that they considered bullying had taken place, accepted that they should have taken a more formal approach and apologised for this error. However, they said there was never any intention of suspending the other student.

On investigation, we found that under the college's disciplinary procedures the bullying in question should have been classed as gross misconduct. The procedure stated that all instances of gross misconduct should lead to a suspension followed by a hearing held by a Vice Principal to decide what action was necessary. However, the college provided evidence that they had made the decision not to follow this formal procedure over concerns regarding the impact this may have on both Mrs C and the other student's well-being, as they both had specific vulnerabilities. We considered that it was within their discretion to make this decision. As such, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the content of a psychological risk assessment, which he said contained out-of-date information which had been obtained during discussions when he was unwell.

We found the psychologist was entitled to take historic discussions into account, even if Mr C was now saying different things. We were satisfied that Mr C's own views were adequately reflected in the assessment report. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.