Not upheld, no recommendations

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.

Summary

Mr C complained about the marking of his dissertation. One of the markers had emailed Mr C to say that he had made a procedural error in submitting the mark he initially felt the dissertation deserved. The university rejected Mr C's subsequent complaint as the marking had been undertaken in line with their procedures. Mr C brought his complaint to us.

We decided that the marker had made an error, but that it was not a procedural one, simply that an incorrect mark had been entered. However, this error was mitigated against by subsequent reconciliation of the mark with the second marker and scrutiny by an external examiner. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C was being escorted by an agency that provides custody escorting services on behalf of the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) between prison and court on several occasions during his trial. He complained that an officer from the agency shared information and comment about him and his case with another officer and that that officer then passed that on to prisoners. He said the prisoners then taunted him with the information and comment, which they said they had got from the agency.

The agency said that, in speaking to staff about the complaint, staff had been very clear that they had not divulged information as alleged. Their account differed from Mr C's, and in the circumstances it was not possible to establish the facts about who said what, if anything. For security reasons involving the nature of Mr C's offences, the agency had not considered it appropriate to interview other prisoners about the events in question, and we accepted their reasons.

Summary

Mr C complained about bullying by a prison officer in his prison. We found that the documentary evidence showed that the officer in question had not been responsible for various actions that Mr C had considered him to have been, such as making a medical decision about whether Mr C should have to share a cell. We also found that the officer had not acted inappropriately in respect of other issues, such as arranging for medical observation of Mr C in line with a prison drugs protocol. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C had previously complained to us that the council failed to properly investigate his complaint about the welfare power of attorney (person named in a legal document which appoints them to act or make certain decisions on behalf of the person who has granted permission for this) who had acted for a member of his family before their death (see complaint 201300636). We upheld this complaint and recommended that council take steps to ensure that the issues he had raised were investigated appropriately. The council carried out a further investigation, but Mr C was unhappy with this and made a further complaint to the council. He referred this complaint to us after receiving the council's response.

We took independent advice on Mr C's complaint from a social work adviser. We found that although there were some minor failings in the council's investigation, overall, the investigation was proportionate and was carried out in line with the relevant code of practice. We said that we would bring the minor failings to the board's attention, but we did not uphold the complaint.

Mr C also complained that the council failed to hold a complaints review committee (CRC) in relation to the complaint. Although the council had initially told Mr C that they would make arrangements to comply with his request, they then told him that a CRC could not be held, as the issue he was complaining about was not one that could be dealt with by a CRC. We were critical that the council's initial letter raised Mr C's expectations that a CRC would be held. We were also critical of the council's delay in responding to his request for a CRC. However, we found that it had been reasonable for the council not to hold a CRC and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C, a council tenant, complained that the council did not take reasonable steps to address water ingress in her home. She said despite numerous visits and investigations by the council's staff, they had not been able to identify the source of the water ingress and they had failed to carry out specific agreed work to identify the source of the problem.

We were satisfied that the council accepted that water ingress was a problem in Ms C's home. The evidence showed that their staff and contractors attended Ms C's home on numerous occasions, conducted a variety of tests and carried out repair work in good faith. When this work proved to be unsuccessful, they sought the opinion of independent specialists and acted upon their recommendations. The overall picture was of the council attempting to identify the cause of the water ingress and when one cause was ruled out, or a remedy did not work, they conducted further investigations and sought to identify other potential causes. We did not find this approach unreasonable.

The council had a clear obligation to ensure that Ms C was housed in a property that was wind and watertight. If they were unable to ensure that Ms C's current property met the required standard, they were obliged to arrange for temporary accommodation while the required work was completed and the basic standard restored. We accepted that the council did offer to provide Ms C with temporary accommodation, but that she chose to remain in her home.

We were, therefore, satisfied that the council took reasonable steps to investigate and resolve the water ingress problems in Ms C's home and offered Ms C temporary accommodation in line with the terms of her tenancy agreement.