Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Ms C, who works for an advocacy agency, complained on behalf of her client (Mr A) that the housing association had not done enough to deal with the anti-social behaviour that Mr A had reported and did not reasonably manage his request to be rehoused.

Mr A had experienced anti-social behaviour from a previous neighbour. When he began experiencing it again from the next tenant, he requested a management transfer (a special transfer not based on the normal points system).

We found that the association had been unable to corroborate Mr A's allegations of anti-social behaviour, despite visiting the property and installing noise monitoring equipment. As such they were limited in how much action they could take. We also found they had assessed Mr A's request to be rehoused in line with their normal allocations policy and did not consider a management transfer to be appropriate; this was a discretionary decision they are allowed to take. For these reasons, we did not uphold Ms C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that he received poor wound care following surgery. He said this resulted in his wound splitting open at home and he had to be readmitted to Western Isles Hospital. Mr C experienced protracted pain and distress due to the condition of his wound.

We took independent advice from a nursing adviser and found that the risk of infection had been discussed with Mr C as part of the consent process before his surgery. We also found that the nursing records, including assessments and charts, were of a reasonable standard and demonstrated that Mr C's wound was appropriately monitored and treated before his initial discharge from hospital.

Summary

Mrs C complained to us that her husband (Mr C) did not receive a reasonable standard of care from his GP practice. Mr C had been a patient at the practice for three months, having transferred from a different practice, when he suffered a heart attack and died.

Mrs C felt that the practice should have requested a chest x-ray and an echocardiogram (a test which records the rhythm and electrical activity of the heart). She said that there had been a sequence of failed attempts to diagnose and treat Mr C.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser. They found that Mr C had received reasonable care from the practice. The adviser noted that Mr C had been appropriately referred to the hospital respiratory medicine department and consequently considered that it was not unreasonable that Mr C was not referred for a chest x-ray or an echocardiogram. We accepted the adviser's comments and we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained to us about a dental practice's handling of her complaint about a dentist. We were satisfied that the practice's response had adequately addressed the issues raised by Ms C. The response was also issued in line with the timescales referred to in the practice's complaints policy. In view of this, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained to us that her dentist did not refer her to specialists in oral surgery to have her wisdom tooth extracted. She had attended a routine appointment with her dentist and explained that she had toothache in her bottom right wisdom tooth. An x-ray was taken but the dentist decided that, as there was no evidence of disease, the wisdom tooth did not need to be extracted. He therefore did not refer Ms C for dental surgery.

We took independent advice from a dental adviser. We found that the dentist had acted in line with the relevant guidelines, which state that impacted wisdom teeth that are free from disease should not be operated on. We did not uphold this aspect of her complaint.

Ms C also complained that the dentist did not tell her she would not be referred to have the wisdom tooth extracted. In response to our enquiries, the dentist told us that he had asked Ms C to wait in the waiting area for the results of the x-ray of her wisdom tooth. However, by the time he went to tell her the results, Ms C had already left the practice. The dentist left a note in her records that this was to be discussed with Ms C at her next visit. However, Ms C did not return to the dental practice.

We found that the dentist had acted reasonably in relation to this matter and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about a change that prison healthcare staff made to his medication dosage. He also complained that he had not been included in the investigation into his complaint.

We took independent advice from a medical adviser. Their view, which we accepted, was that Mr C's medication had been appropriately prescribed and so we did not uphold this complaint.

We also found that Mr C had been consulted during the investigation, and so we did not uphold this complaint either.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about the care and treatment he had received from the maxillofacial (the speciality concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of diseases affecting the mouth, jaws, face and neck) unit at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary. Mr C had been referred to the unit because of a lesion (an area of abnormal tissue) on his palate.

A biopsy (tissue sample) was taken out but two weeks later he suffered a bleed from the site of the biopsy and had to re-attend the hospital. The following morning, Mr C experienced another bleed and was again advised to attend the hospital. After experiencing a further bleed on the next day, he contacted the hospital and was given the option of readmission for the bleeding to be monitored. Mr C refused this as he was due to go into a private hospital the next day for prostate surgery.

Mr C was admitted to the private hospital for the prostate surgery. However, he suffered a serious bleed from the site of the biopsy and it was decided the surgery could not go ahead. Instead a maxillofacial consultant was called and they took action to stop the bleeding from Mr C's palate, in theatre under general anaesthetic. Mr C had to pay for this procedure. He subsequently complained about the care and treatment he had received from the board's maxillofacial unit.

We took independent advice on Mrs C's complaint from a specialist in oral and maxillofacial surgery. We found that the biopsy had been carried out in a reasonable manner. We also found that the treatment provided by the maxillofacial unit in response to Mr C's bleeding had been reasonable and appropriate. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C attended both his medical practice and A&E on several occasions with back, leg, neck and arm pain. After a visit to A&E, a scan was arranged and Mr C was referred to neurosurgery. He underwent surgery to improve his pain, although Mr C was advised that he will never be pain-free.

Mr C complained that the practice failed to take his condition seriously and contributed to a delay in his treatment. He also complained that the practice did not arrange a new prescription for painkillers in time for his discharge from hospital after surgery, despite him giving them notice of this. Mr C raised concerns that although he has been sober for several years, the practice was treating him differently due to his history of alcohol addiction.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found the practice made several referrals to neurosurgery and that Mr C did not attend the first appointment, although it is unclear whether Mr C received the letters. The hospital declined further referrals as a scan showed surgery was not appropriate for Mr C at that time. The adviser said there was no indication that Mr C's condition had changed until he attended A&E, when an urgent scan was arranged. The practice then made a further urgent referral to neurosurgery, which was accepted.

We also found it was reasonable for the practice not to have issued a repeat prescription for Mr C's medications until they had received the hospital discharge letter and Mr C had been reviewed by a GP. The adviser explained that this would be the same for all patients in this situation and that there was no evidence the practice had treated Mr C differently in view of his past history of alcohol addiction. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment received by her husband (Mr A) during an admission to Cameron Hospital for rehabilitation following a spinal injury. She complained about various aspects of nursing care, particularly surrounding the fitting of, and monitoring of time Mr A spent in, his back brace. We took independent advice from a nurse. The adviser considered that this challenging aspect of care was appropriately considered across the multi-disciplinary team and that reasonable action was taken to achieve a suitable balance and ensure Mr A's comfort and dignity were maintained. Overall, the adviser considered that the standard of nursing care provided to Mr A was reasonable and we did not uphold this complaint.

Mrs C also complained about the standard of physiotherapy and occupational therapy care provided to her husband. She felt that Mr A only received a token programme of rehabilitation and also raised concerns about the occupational therapist's input during an assessment of their home prior to discharge. We were advised that the care provided to Mr A during his admission was reasonable. The adviser also noted that Mr A's discharge was complex to coordinate but considered there to be evidence of detailed planning by the multi-disciplinary team, overseen by the occupational therapist, in order to meet the family's needs in this regard. Overall, we concluded that the standard of physiotherapy and occupational therapy care provided to Mr A was reasonable and we did not uphold this complaint.

Finally, Mrs C complained about the communication between staff, and with her and her family. In particular, she complained that the nursing staff responded negatively to her raising concerns about Mr A's treatment. She said that the way she was spoken to by a nurse left her feeling unable to return to the ward to visit her husband. She did not consider that the board had sufficiently addressed her concerns in this regard. While the adviser found that the records demonstrated a reasonable standard of communication, it was recognised that there were significant difficulties in communication between healthcare staff and Mrs C's family, which led to a breakdown in relations. We were satisfied, however, that the board made reasonable efforts to resolve these difficulties and we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C was a Masters student. The university decided not to pass his project dissertation, as a result of which he was not awarded a masters degree. Mr C appealed the decision to the university and then complained to us. His view was that the feedback the university gave him about their decision not to pass his project dissertation was deficient. He also complained that the university had acted unreasonably by not providing feedback on his draft literary review.

The university considered that Mr C's appeal was a straightforward challenge to academic judgement, which is excluded as grounds for appeal. Mr C was aware that we do not have the authority to investigate complaints about action taken by the university in the exercise of academic judgement by them. Mr C's complaint to us was that the university had acted unreasonably by failing to provide any evidence or explanation that they had considered the information he had provided to question the factual accuracy of the feedback he received. Following investigation, we concluded that we were satisfied that the university's appeals sub-committee had been provided with all relevant documents, including the documents where Mr C said he complained about the factual accuracy of the feedback, before they reached a decision on his appeal. We were satisfied that the university had provided a reasonable explanation as to why they considered that Mr C was questioning academic judgement and that the sub-committee's report provided sufficient explanation/evidence that they had considered his appeal and gave the reasons for their decision. We therefore did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

We also did not uphold the complaint that the university had acted unreasonably by failing to provide feedback to Mr C on his draft literary review. Mr C said he was told that he would receive feedback if the review did not meet the required standard. When this did not happen, he assumed that it had met the required standard. However, the examiner's feedback he received indicated that this was not, in fact, the case. Following our investigation, the only evidence we found that indicated that Mr C may be provided with feedback was in an email from a member of staff to him regarding the review which stated that '… feedback will be given if required'. It was not clear whether this was if the university deemed it was required or if the student required (ie asked) for it. However, when Mr C did not receive feedback, there is no evidence that he contacted the university about this. We did not consider that it was reasonable for Mr C to assume that, in the absence of feedback, the review met the required standard.