Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mrs C complained that a dental hygienist carried out a scale and polish procedure inappropriately and that this caused extensive damage to her teeth. We took independent dental advice. We found that there was no evidence to suggest the hygienist failed to carry out the procedure appropriately, or that this had caused damage to Mrs C's teeth. We did not uphold this complaint.

Mrs C also complained that the subsequent treatment and advice she received from a dentist was unreasonable. We were advised that the records indicated that appropriate treatment was provided and correct advice offered. We did not uphold this complaint.

In addition, Mrs C complained about the board's response to her complaint. She felt that they unreasonably disregarded the evidence of the further treatment that she received, which she considered supported her concerns that the scale and polish procedure damaged her teeth. She was also unhappy with the dentist's indication that they offered fluoride treatment for sensitivity when she said it was offered to address the damage to her teeth. We were advised that the further treatment Mrs C required was due to her teeth being worn and not as a result of any unreasonable prior treatment. We were also advised that fluoride treatment is usually offered to treat sensitivity or decay, and not damage to teeth such as that described by Mrs C. We therefore concluded that the board's response was reasonable and we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained about the care her mother (Mrs A) received from her medical practice.

Mrs A had been experiencing diarrhoea for a number of weeks. The practice had prescribed medication, requested a stool sample and offered referral for a colonoscopy (imaging of the bowel). Mrs A later died in hospital.

We sought independent medical advice. The adviser was satisfied the practice had provided a reasonable standard of care. We therefore did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained to us about the care and treatment that her mother (Mrs A) had received from her medical practice before her death. Mrs C considered that Mrs A should have been admitted to hospital earlier and that her death could have been prevented.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser. We found that the examinations carried out by the GPs and the treatment plan put in place for Mrs A had been reasonable. A urine infection had been treated appropriately with antibiotics and it had been reasonable to delay a blood test until she finished the antibiotics. The clinical entries in her records were of a reasonable standard and were in line with guidance from the General Medical Council.

We also found that on the final occasion Mrs A was seen by the GPs, the treatment given to her in relation to her chest symptoms had been reasonable and in line with the relevant guidance. However, her condition deteriorated later that day. She was admitted to hospital and died on the following day. There was no evidence that Mrs A's death was caused by or hastened by the GPs' actions or that it could have been prevented. When Mrs A saw the GPs, there had been no indication that she should be admitted to hospital.

We found that the care and treatment provided to Mrs A had been of a reasonable standard and we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the medical practice after they removed his family from the practice list for being outwith the practice boundary. Following a home visit to Mr C's father-in-law, the practice had advised that they felt the distance they had to travel presented a potential safety risk. This had led them to audit the practice list and they had decided to remove all patients outwith their boundary.

Mr C advised that, although his family was outwith the practice boundary, they had been registered there for many years following a complaint against their previous practice. He considered that this meant they should be allowed to remain on the practice list.

We found that the practice had clearly explained the reasons for their decision and given reasonable notice of the removal of services. We sought independent advice from a GP adviser, who was satisfied that the practice had complied with the provisions set out in the General Medical Services Contract for the removal of patients from the practice list, and that it was within their discretion to remove patients who were outwith their practice boundary. We accepted this advice and did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care and treatment provided to him at Grampian Royal Infirmary following his diagnosis of prostate cancer. Mr C said that he had not been provided with all the information necessary for him to give informed consent for the prostate surgery he had undergone. Mr C said that the board had failed to provide him with a test result which showed that the indicator used to measure the cancer's activity had declined.

The board said that Mr C had been managed and advised appropriately. They accepted that he had not been provided with the test result, but said this was not required for him to have given his informed consent. Additionally the board noted that Mr C had had a number of detailed discussions with his clinicians about his treatment options.

We took independent medical advice on the treatment provided to Mr C. The adviser said that Mr C's management and treatment were in line with the appropriate clinical guidelines. It noted that Mr C had delayed his treatment as he had wished to travel abroad during it. During this trip, a test of his cancer indicators had shown a marked rise. The advice noted that the test Mr C was not informed about showed a lower level of this indicator. The medical decision to operate on Mr C was based on the assessment of a scan of his prostate, and a subsequent examination of the cancer showed it to be more serious than previously thought. The advice said this supported the decisions made by medical staff.

We found that the test level was not the determining factor in deciding whether Mr C should have undergone surgery. We found that for informed consent, Mr C needed to be provided with sufficient information to understand the reason for his surgery, the risks and benefits of the proposed treatment and the alternatives available to him. The evidence showed that this had been done and that the treatment Mr C was provided with was the appropriate one. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C's partner (Mr A) was admitted to the A&E department at Forth Valley Royal Hospital, where he died. Mr A's mobile phone was not listed among his valuables and could not be found. Ms C made a formal complaint to the board but the phone could not be located. Ms C said that the phone contained images of her late partner and their child that could not be recovered.

Our investigation focused on the efforts made to locate the phone and/or to find out where and when it had gone missing. We were satisfied that, although ultimately unsuccessful, the board took reasonable actions to try to locate the phone.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his wife (Mrs A). He said that she had suffered from a complex series of health complaints for a number of years. He also said that despite the significant impact this had had on Mrs A and her family, the board had failed to provide a satisfactory diagnosis or a reasonable standard of care and treatment. Mr C said that Mrs A's orthopaedic, neurological and rheumatology care had all been of an unacceptable standard.

We took independent medical advice on Mrs A's care and treatment. The adviser said that Mrs A had presented with a complex set of symptoms which could not be explained by a single diagnosis from any of the specialists who reviewed her. Mrs A had been reasonably diagnosed with a neurological condition but had been unwilling to accept this diagnosis as she felt it reflected on her mental health. Mrs A was referred for further specialist review which provided a diagnosis of arthritis. The adviser said there had not been sufficient evidence available previously to make this diagnosis.

Overall we found Mrs A had been provided with a reasonable standard of care and treatment. Although a diagnosis was subsequently made, it did not explain the majority of her symptoms and there was no evidence that it should have been made earlier by the board. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that his prison failed to enforce Prison Rule 36 on smoking.

We found the prison took a pragmatic and proportionate approach to enforcing the prison rules regarding prisoners who are found to be smoking, while at the same time acknowledging prisoners' addiction to smoking and trying to help manage it. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained about how the council handled her concerns about a breach of planning control by her neighbours who had built a balcony. She complained that it did not meet the minimum distance requirements for privacy. Ms C also pointed out that while the council said they followed guidance, the guidance did not refer to balconies. She questioned therefore how the council could say they followed guidance.

In addition, Ms C pointed out that the council elected to use window to window minimum distance measurements for assessing privacy, but she noted that the council themselves pointed out that the minimum distances were not met.

We requested all of the relevant information from the council and also sought independent planning advice. We noted that, prior to our involvement in this case, the council had acknowledged their failings and had taken action to remedy them. In particular, the council recognised that their Guidance to Householders was insufficient with regard to balconies and privacy and accepted that it should be reviewed.

The adviser confirmed that the use of enforcement powers is a discretionary matter for the council. The adviser also concluded that the council had addressed the concerns Ms C raised and that their officers applied the most appropriate guidance available to them at the time. We accepted this view and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of issues about the council's handling of statutory notices issued in relation to his property.

Our investigation found no evidence that the council had failed to follow the notification process in relation to the issue of the statutory notices or that they had failed to follow procedures in relation to the decision to administer the works on behalf of owners.

While we were concerned that the council's project file was incomplete in relation to the repairs carried out, the project had been reviewed by an independent adviser appointed by the council, who was satisfied that the works carried out were within the scope of the statutory notices and the final bill issued to owners was correct. We were also aware that action had been taken by the council to improve record-keeping in relation to project files for works undertaken to comply with statutory notices.