Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council had failed to take all appropriate steps in relation to her reports of anti-social behaviour. During our investigation we noted that the council's anti-social behaviour policy gives staff discretion to decide how to investigate complaints and to decide what action, if any, should be taken. By law, we are not able to question these decisions unless there is evidence of administrative error in reaching the decision. The council's policy indicated that mediation and noise monitoring should be considered and we saw evidence that this had happened. We were satisfied that the council had taken appropriate steps in line with their policy, and so we did not uphold this complaint.

Mrs C also complained that the council had not properly considered and assessed her claim for damage caused to her property. During our investigation we found that the insurers had been supplied with sufficient information by the council. We therefore did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way the council considered, and approved, a planning application to build a house close to his own. He said that the proposed structure as shown on the plans should have alerted the council to look more closely at the application and its potential to create noise in the surrounding area. The application was advertised but no comments were made about it by neighbours or the environmental health department. It was approved by the council.

The development as built did not comply with the planning permission granted and the developer was required to regularise the situation. The developer applied to the council for a non-material variation (where amendments proposed will not significantly change the scheme that was originally granted planning permission), which was approved around a year after the initial planning application had been approved. Mr C complained that this approach was unreasonable as was the council's action on his complaints of noise. The council, however, maintained that they dealt appropriately with both applications and with the information presented to them and, after investigation, they had found no evidence of a statutory noise nuisance.

We took independent planning advice and found that the council had assessed the applications made in terms of current legislation and guidance. We found that Mr C's complaints about noise had been reasonably investigated and the council had sought to limit any noise between the hours of 19:00 and 09:00. We also found that his complaint had been dealt with reasonably.

Summary

Mr C complained that the housing association had not acted reasonably in relation to a series of anti-social behaviour incidents that he reported.

After investigation, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. We found no evidence that the association had not acted in line with their policy and procedure for dealing with anti-social behaviour.

Summary

Mr C complained that the housing association was failing to ensure that their contractors provided a reasonable stair-cleaning service in the communal areas of his home. He had reported a number of issues to them about poor cleaning.

The association acknowledged that there had been problems but noted that they had acted when Mr C raised concerns. They had either inspected the communal areas and found them to be in a reasonable condition or instructed their contractors to carry out further cleaning.

We found that the association had taken Mr C's complaints seriously and responded to each of his communications. As we found no evidence of administrative failings in the way they had dealt with this matter, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the practice's failure to make reasonable adjustments to her medication regime regarding repeat prescriptions required following her consultation with a consultant ophthalmologist. Mrs C felt that there had been delays in the provision of eye drops and ointments.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser who said that the practice had provided details of their repeat prescription policy which was reasonable. They said the practice had acted reasonably in regard to the issue of ophthalmic prescriptions, and where they were unable to provide a prescription when requested this was due to either there being a need to clarify the prescription or due to medication supply issues. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that he was not appropriately assessed and treated during two separate attendances at the A&E department of the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh. He also complained that he was inappropriately discharged on both occasions.

Mr C attended the A&E department having sustained a head injury and was assessed and admitted for a period of observation before being discharged. He presented again two days later reporting ongoing symptoms including vomiting and a worsening headache. He received a brain scan and spinal x-ray, both of which were normal. He was discharged with head injury and pain management advice.

We took independent advice from a consultant in emergency medicine who considered that the care Mr C received on both attendances was of a high standard and was consistent with national guidance on the early management of patients with a head injury. He considered that it was reasonable for Mr C to have been discharged on both occasions, noting that the tests had excluded the possibility of a significant injury to his brain. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained on behalf of Miss A who said she suffered from Jarisch Herxheimer's reaction (a severe but treatable reaction to antibiotics). Miss A said doctors at Raigmore Hospital had failed to treat her properly by refusing to accept that she suffered from this condition and refusing to admit her to hospital for a week-long course of supervised antibiotics that would have demonstrated that her condition was genuine.

We took advice from a consultant in infectious disease medicine. The advice said the condition was normally found in patients being treated with antibiotics for a specific type of bacterial infection, such as syphilis or Lyme disease. Miss A had been tested for these and been found to be clear of infection. She had also been tested for latent tuberculosis. The advice said Miss A's doctors had eliminated any possible infections that might cause the condition when treated with antibiotics. It would not be appropriate to provide antibiotic treatment to a patient without an identified infection. This could lead to an increase in antibiotic resistance both in Miss A and the general population, reducing the effectiveness of future treatments. It would also put Miss A at risk of side effects including possible significant bowel disease.

We found that Miss A had been provided with a reasonable standard of care and treatment. While it was acknowledged that Miss A had suffered a very distressing experience, there was no medical evidence to show she suffered from Jarisch Herxheimer's reaction and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C said that she attended Gartnavel General Hospital in 2012 because of a persistent chronic cough. She was told that there were a number of potential causes for this but that a high resolution computerised tomography (HRCT) scan and other tests had been ordered to exclude any structural lung disease, in particular bronchiectasis (a chronic lung condition). The required tests were carried out and reported at clinic in January 2013. At this stage, it appeared that there was no evidence of bronchiectasis.

Mrs C said that she remained unwell and a repeat HRCT was ordered. Following this, she was told in September 2014 that she had bronchiectasis. Mrs C complained to the board that they had failed to diagnose her in early 2013 and that as a consequence she did not receive the required treatment. The board, however, maintained that she had been treated appropriately and that changes occurred in the period after her first HRCT.

We took independent advice from a consultant in respiratory medicine and we found that HRCT scanning was the 'gold standard' to determine whether or not bronchiectasis was present. On the first such scan there was no such evidence of this but this was found to be the case in 2014. While the impact of the diagnosis for Mrs C has been great, we found no evidence to suggest that this was as a consequence of any shortcoming on the part of the board.

Summary

Ms C said that a nurse injured her child's arm while removing a plaster cast. She complained to the board who made their own investigations but concluded that the cast had been removed in an appropriate way, and that neither the nurse or the doctor concerned had noted any injury.

We took independent nursing advice and we found that the records did not show any evidence of the child being distressed or injured. There was no evidence to show that the plaster cast had been removed in an inappropriate way. The complaint was not upheld.

Summary

Following eye surgery, Mrs A was referred to an optometry practice by her consultant ophthalmologist to be fitted with a corneoscleral lens (a large diameter rigid contact lens) on her right eye to assist with eye moisture retention. Mrs A attended an appointment to be provided with instruction on the use and care of the lens which involved the use of a lens cleaning and disinfecting solution. At the end of the consultation Mrs A purchased the solution from the practice's reception.

Mrs A later used the solution, which is peroxide based, in its unneutralised state and suffered pain, inflammation and damage to the eye and the surrounding skin. Mr C complained on behalf of Mrs A (his wife) that the optometry practice had failed to ensure Mrs A was provided with an appropriate lens care regime and instructions on how to use the lens safely.

We obtained independent advice from an optometrist. The adviser said that what had happened in Mrs A's case been brought about by her misunderstanding of the correct contact lens cleaning regime which had led to her erroneously applying the solution to the lens in the pre-neutralised state just prior to insertion into the eye. The adviser found no evidence that what occurred had been due to failings in the advice and treatment Mrs A received from the optometry practice. The adviser said the advice and treatment they provided had been appropriate. We accepted this advice and did not uphold the complaint.