Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Ms C and Mr C complained about the level of consultation carried out by the council in relation to a site planning brief issued by them proposing that an area of open space on a former school site be released, in part, for housing.

We reviewed the steps taken by the council when undertaking the consultation and also considered the procedural and legal duties imposed on the council in respect of consultation. Having done so, we were of the view that the consultation carried out was proportionate and in line with the council's responsibilities. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us on behalf of his sister (Miss A), a housing association tenant. He complained that the association unreasonably withdrew an offer of housing from her.

We found that the association had asked Miss A to contact them as she was being considered for a property. When Miss A contacted the association she told them that her circumstances had changed. The process was therefore stopped at that point – without an offer of housing being made – so that Miss A could let the association know about these changes and allow them to be assessed.

As there were was no evidence of an offer being made we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his late sister (Miss A) about the care that she received at the Western General Hospital, in particular that she was prescribed methotrexate (a drug to suppress the immune system) for Crohn's disease (a long-term condition that causes inflammation of the lining of the digestive system). Miss A was diagnosed with tumours in her liver and bone marrow and died around a week later. Mr C understood that Miss A had refused methotrexate in the past and was concerned that it had been given to her without her knowledge.

We took independent medical advice and found that the prescribing of methotrexate in Miss A's case was reasonable and in keeping with national guidance on the management of Crohn's disease. Miss A's Crohn's disease was complex and had been difficult to control with medication. We did not identify evidence to show that Miss A had refused methotrexate but that surgery had been offered as an alternative which she declined.

Summary

Ms C complained about a decision to reduce her thyroid medication following the results of a blood test.

We sought independent medical advice. The adviser said the change in medication dosage was reasonable and in line with guidance for managing thyroid disease.

We accepted this advice and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained that a psychiatrist failed to reach a reasonable diagnosis on the basis of her circumstances and medical history. In particular, Miss C raised concerns that the psychiatrist did not appropriately address her reported history of abuse in reaching the diagnosis. Miss C also questioned whether the psychiatrist considered other factors that would have impacted on her presentation at the psychiatric consultation. Miss C said a different diagnosis should have been reached and that the psychiatrist did not engage appropriately with her spiritual beliefs. Miss C questioned whether the diagnosis was based on an appropriate level of assessment.

The board said the psychiatrist was appropriately concerned that Miss C was suffering from psychiatric illness.

After receiving independent psychiatric advice, we did not uphold Miss C's complaint. We found the psychiatrist appropriately considered Miss C's history and other factors impacting on her presentation at the consultation. We found that the psychiatrist conducted an appropriate assessment and that the diagnosis reached was reasonable in the circumstances.

Summary

Miss C complained that a GP with whom she had been discussing rape and sexual assault unreasonably referred her to a psychiatrist. In particular, Miss C raised concerns that the medical practice had been dismissive of her history and circumstances. She also raised concerns that the practice referred her unreasonably on the basis of previous psychiatric history. She said that the referral should have been to another specialist.

The practice said that the GP referred her to the psychiatrist as it was clinically indicated to do so. They also said the referral was not based on Miss C's previous psychiatric history, but on the GP's concerns about Miss C. The practice also understood that Miss C was in contact with a rape counselling service.

After receiving independent medical advice, we did not uphold Miss C's complaint. We found the referral was reasonable based on the clinical signs recorded in the medical records, which may have been consistent with certain mental health conditions. We also found that the GP considered appropriately the reported history of abuse in making the referral.

Summary

Mrs C complained about a GP's consultation with her husband (Mr A). In particular she felt that that the GP had not taken into account that Mr A had cancer, had unreasonably missed the fact that Mr A had a deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and had inappropriately prescribed quinine. We took independent advice from a medical adviser and concluded that the GP had acted reasonably. In particular, they had taken account of Mr A's cancer, the DVT which Mr A had could not have been detected at the time and the prescription was appropriate.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his constituent (Ms B) who had concerns about the treatment her mother (Mrs A) received at the New Victoria Hospital. Ms B had taken her mother to the hospital after suffering a head wound which would not stop bleeding. Staff at the hospital felt that Mrs A required treatment at the A&E department at the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital and requested an urgent ambulance. There was a 90 minute delay in the arrival of the ambulance and Ms B felt that staff should have stressed the urgency of the situation or provided additional treatment while waiting for the ambulance.

We obtained independent nursing advice which stated that the staff had appropriately assessed that Mrs A required transfer to the A&E department, kept her under observation during the wait for the ambulance and made a further attempt to establish when the ambulance would arrive. However, had the situation deteriorated then there was no indication of what action the staff would have taken and we have asked the board to provide Ms B with explanations which may have given her some reassurance. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C, who works for an advice and support agency, complained on behalf of Mrs A. Mrs A underwent a mastectomy procedure at the Victoria Infirmary. She was discharged two days later by a consultant. Mrs A's wound did not heal as expected and she had out-patient treatment to address this. When the treatment was ineffective it was decided that she should undergo a further procedure to explore, wash out and re-close the wound. This surgery was carried out by the consultant who had discharged Mrs A previously. Mrs A was unhappy with the actions of the consultant and complained.

After taking advice from a consultant breast surgeon, we did not uphold this complaint. The advice we received was that adequate and appropriate treatment had been provided by the consultant.

Summary

Ms C, who works for an advice and support agency, complained on behalf of her client (Ms B) who had concerns about the care and treatment received by her mother (Mrs A) at Gartnavel General Hospital. Mrs A was admitted to the hospital for rehabilitation and post-operation recovery following surgery to remove a tumour from her lung. Mrs A acquired a chest infection during her admission and suffered from vomiting and diarrhoea. Mrs A died while in the hospital.

Mrs A had been unable to swallow following surgery. Ms C said that Ms B had concerns about the way staff administered nutrition to Mrs A via a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube (a tube that enters the stomach through a small incision in the abdomen). Ms C also expressed concern that staff had failed to update Ms B and communicate with her appropriately during Mrs A's admission. Ms C noted that Ms B considered that the board had not followed the DNACPR (do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation) policy in relation to Mrs A. Ms C also said that Ms B was concerned that staff had failed to manage the risk of diarrhoea and vomiting on the ward.

We took independent nursing advice. The adviser found no evidence in the medical records that staff had failed to provide Mrs A with appropriate PEG tube care and treatment. They also considered that the records showed that staff had communicated reasonably with Ms B. The adviser also found that staff had followed DNACPR policy appropriately and noted evidence of a discussion with Mrs A and completion of a DNACPR form. Regarding the management of diarrhoea and vomiting, the adviser was satisfied that the board had appropriate procedures in place and that nursing staff had acted reasonably in accordance with these. We therefore did not uphold Ms C's complaints.