Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment provided to her by her medical practice in relation to her ongoing ankle pain.

During our investigation we took independent advice from a GP adviser. The advice we received was that the care and treatment provided by the practice in relation to the ongoing management of Mrs C's ankle injury was of a reasonable standard and no failings were identified. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf of her son (Mr A), who was admitted to the Royal Alexandra Hospital with kidney failure and physical collapse. He was transferred to the Western Infirmary and was diagnosed with neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS), a rare condition caused by some medications (particularly antipsychotics). Mrs C was concerned that Mr A's overall treatment pathway for the previous ten years led to his collapse. In particular, Mrs C felt that the clinicians treating Mr A had inappropriately used strong antipsychotic drugs and had not taken into account Mr A's particular risk factors in relation to his medication. Mrs C also felt the board had ignored alternative treatment options for Mr A, including an alternative diagnosis of an anxiety disorder. Mrs C also complained about the board's handling of her complaint to them.

The board met with Mrs C and wrote several letters in response to her complaint and further queries. While the board acknowledged the severe impact of NMS on Mr A, they said that NMS is a rare and unpredictable event, and they considered Mr A's treatment was appropriate in view of his chronic psychotic illness. The board noted that Mrs C disagreed with clinicians about Mr A's diagnosis.

After taking independent psychiatric advice, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaints. While we found that Mr A's NMS was caused by his medications, the adviser explained that the risk of NMS was very small and the decisions made about Mr A's medication during this period were in line with the relevant guidance and standard practice. We found no evidence that the board had failed to consider Mr A's particular risk factors or the alternative diagnosis suggested by some clinicians. While we acknowledged that Mrs C was not satisfied with the board's response to her complaint, we did not find any failings in their complaint investigation or replies.

Summary

Miss C suffered burns to her legs and attended A&E at Glasgow Royal Infirmary. She complained that she had received an inadequate standard of treatment and that she had been inappropriately discharged. She said that she had been discharged the same day, despite being unsteady on her feet, and that she was asked to attend a burns clinic the following day. Miss C said that on attendance at the burns clinic, she was admitted to the hospital and spent two weeks as an in-patient.

We took independent medical advice from a consultant in emergency medicine. The adviser said that Miss C had been appropriately assessed at the hospital and that it was reasonable for her to have been discharged once her pain had been brought under control. They noted that Miss C had been accompanied and that her discharge had been in line with standard practice. The adviser also noted that there was no defined standard for admission with the type of burn Miss C had sustained and that her medical records supported the decision not to admit her. Miss C's subsequent admission had been prolonged due to an infection in her wound, which had not been present at the time of her first attendance. Miss C's length of stay was therefore not due only to the severity of her burns.

We found that the board acted reasonably both in terms of the care and treatment provided to Miss C and in terms of the decision to discharge her. We therefore did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the board had acted unreasonably by not offering him surgery to address his back, leg and foot pain.

We took independent advice from an orthopaedic surgeon. They noted that at the time of the board's decision, surgery was not appropriate for Mr C. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that staff at University Hospital Ayr failed to provide him with appropriate clinical treatment, based on the symptoms he reported.

Mr C experienced pain in his back and dropped foot (a muscular weakness that makes it difficult to lift the front part of the foot and toes). Mr C's GP arranged for him to attend A&E and he was seen by members of the hospital's orthopaedic team. A diagnosis was made of a prolapsed intervertebral disc (ruptured disc in the spine) with associated motor weakness. The decision was made not to treat Mr C surgically at that time. An MRI scan was also considered to be unnecessary. Mr C was referred to his GP to arrange physiotherapy and he saw a physiotherapist some days later. Based on Mr C's symptoms, he was then referred to hospital and received an MRI scan and an emergency operation.

After receiving independent advice from an orthopaedic surgeon, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. We found that an examination of Mr C at A&E did not reveal red flag features (features which would have required urgent intervention). In this context, we found that the plan of management without surgery adopted at A&E was appropriate. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained that their daughter (Miss A) was not provided with reasonable university accommodation for her specific health needs when she needed to move flats during term time.

The university provided Miss A with a flat which they said was suitable for her. However, they did accept that they did not have relevant information about Miss A's requirements available to them when they checked the accommodation system because of an issue with information-sharing between departments. This has subsequently been resolved. The university worked hard to find alternatives for Miss A and support her through other services. For these reasons we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) failed to follow the proper procedure prior to taking the decision to return him to closed conditions from the open estate (less secure prison conditions). In particular, Mr C said the SPS had not issued certain paperwork to him or given him the opportunity to put forward representations before the final decision was made.

We reviewed the information Mr C provided in support of his complaint and we also obtained information from the SPS. In addition, we reviewed the risk management and progression guidance which sets out the policy and procedure that prisons should follow when they are considering returning a prisoner to closed conditions. Having done that, it was clear that the SPS had followed the correct process prior to taking the decision to return Mr C to closed conditions. He was issued with the relevant paperwork and he was given an opportunity to make written representations. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to investigate within a reasonable timescale a complaint about his neighbour conducting a business from their home. He also complained that the council had failed to respond to his complaints. He said that the council's decision that there had been no breach of planning control had been made without all the facts required to make an evidence-based decision.

We took independent planning advice which stated that the council could exercise its discretion when deciding whether a breach of planning control had occurred. Additionally, it was not unreasonable for the council to have decided how much weight to give to information submitted by Mr C, as opposed to the evidence gathered by its own offices. We found the council had conducted a lengthy and thorough investigation and whilst there had been delays, these had been due to engagement with government agencies over which the council had no control. We also found the council had reached a reasonable decision based on the evidence available to it.

We found that although the council had responded to Mr C's complaints, it had not done so in a way that made it clear that the response was part of the complaints process, rather than the wider correspondence Mr C was having with the council. The council had recognised this when reviewing their investigation and taken action to address this failure.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council had failed to take reasonable steps to investigate and act on her complaints of anti-social behaviour. In response to Miss C's complaint, the council told her they had investigated her concerns. They noted that her reports were related to noise that would be expected during her neighbour's daily use of the property and that making this noise was not considered to be anti-social behaviour.

Miss C was unhappy with the council's decision. We investigated and noted that the council's anti-social behaviour team had responded to her reports of anti-social behaviour. On two occasions they had taken steps to warn her neighbour about the noise but were satisfied that on other occasions there were no instances of anti-social behaviour. They did note that her property had poor sound insulation and carried out works accordingly. However, Miss C continued to report noise.

We accepted that Miss C had suffered from the noise but were satisfied that the council had investigated Miss C's concerns and taken action where appropriate. We therefore did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C attended the chest clinic at Ninewells Hospital with shortness of breath. He said that he was told by the doctor at the clinic that he would be referred for an echocardiogram (a scan used to look at the heart and nearby blood vessels) and an exercise test and that it would be four to six weeks until the tests were carried out. Mr C said that when he phoned the board four weeks later, he was told there was a 28-week waiting time for the echocardiogram/exercise test from date of referral.

Having complained to the board about the delay and received no response, Mr C arranged to have the echocardiogram/exercise test done privately and it was carried out that month. Mr C said that two weeks after the test, the board advised him that he would be given an appointment for the test in two weeks' time. Mr C said that had he known this he would not have arranged the test himself. Mr C also complained that the board unreasonably refused to pay the costs of the test he obtained privately.

We obtained independent medical advice on the complaint from a consultant physician in respiratory and general medicine. The adviser said that in Mr C's case, the echocardiogram and exercise tests would be considered routine, rather than urgent. The adviser said the original waiting time given by the doctor of four to six weeks would have been given in good faith and as the test would be provided outwith his own department, they would probably not have been aware of the actual wait. The adviser said a 28-week wait for the test was undesirable but was an unfortunate consequence of resourcing issues at the board.

Whilst it was understandable that Mr C was anxious to determine the cause of his symptoms and therefore arranged for the tests to be done privately, we considered it was not unreasonable for the board to refuse to pay the costs of Mr C's private treatment.