Not upheld, no recommendations

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.

Summary

Mr C was receiving his medication from a prison health centre nurse. The nurse considered that Mr C was concealing his medication. After consultation with a GP, Mr C's medication was removed. Mr C was given a review appointment with the GP and an alternative medication was prescribed.

Mr C complained that the medication was removed with immediate effect on an unproven allegation and that the alternative medication prescribed was inappropriate. We found that the medical staff had acted appropriately, did not have a requirement to prove an allegation before medication was removed, removed the medication appropriately and provided a reasonable alternative.

Summary

After a recurrence of cancer, it was agreed that Mr C's bladder and prostate would be removed. He had a pre-operative session about a stoma (a surgically made pouch outside the body) and his surgery was carried out a few days later. Mr C appeared to be recovering well, but he then began to suffer problems with his stoma leaking. He complained that this was as a consequence of the board not providing him with reasonable care or aftercare in relation to the stoma. It was the board's view that they had provided appropriate care to Mr C.

We took independent advice from a specialist pelvic cancer surgeon and we found that all of Mr C's care and treatment had been in accordance with relevant guidance. He had had significant problems after his operation but the board had taken all reasonable and appropriate efforts to resolve these. While it was very regrettable that Mr C had to endure difficulties which affected the quality of his life, there was no evidence of poor care. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C's organisation was appointed to manage a university's utility bills. Mr C queried the charges applied by Business Stream at one of the university's premises. The university's drainage charges were based on the rateable value of the premises, as determined by the local council regional assessors. Following an appeal, the assessors had greatly reduced the rateable value, leading to a reduction in the university's drainage charges. However, Mr C complained that Business Stream had backdated the lower rates to the date of the assessor's decision, rather than the 'effective date' which the assessor had stated for the changes. He considered that the lower rates should have been backdated a further 12 months.

Having reviewed relevant water industry rules, we were satisfied that Business Stream appropriately backdated the lower rates to the start of the financial year in which the appeal was upheld.

Summary

Mr C complained about unreasonable delay by the prison in transferring him to a prison where he would have the chance to do work placements in the community. Our investigation revealed that there had been delay but that this had been unavoidably caused by a backlog of prisoners who were also waiting for such a transfer. We noted that Mr C did obtain his transfer and that the new prison brought forward their consideration of him for work placements by two months to help avoid further delay. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C made a complaint on behalf of her stepson (Mr A). He was unhappy with Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (PIRC)'s response to his service complaint about the way they dealt with a complaint about Police Scotland. In particular, Mr A said that in replying to his concerns, PIRC failed to follow statutory guidance and provided unreasonable responses about their failure to request CCTV footage and their recommendations.

We investigated the complaint and we found that although there were some minor discrepancies in PIRC's final complaint report for which apologies had been made, their response to Mr A's concerns about following statutory guidelines had been reasonable. Similarly, they had provided reasonable and appropriate replies about his concerns about CCTV footage and about the recommendations they had made in his complaint against Police Scotland. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.