Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mrs C complained about the lack of action taken by the council when she reported noise and other nuisance or anti-social behaviour from her neighbour, a council tenant. Mrs C eventually moved out and rented her property out. Mrs C contacted the council to complain when her tenant began to experience the same anti-social behaviour.

We found that the council had followed their anti-social behaviour policy. Specifically, when nuisance was reported, we found that the council had visited the property and tried to get statements from the person who reported the nuisance and / or neighbours. Each time they visited they left calling cards. The council offered to install noise monitoring equipment. This did not happen because people moved out or did not want the equipment installed. The council also asked people to make statements or to fill in diary records but these were not returned. The council also worked with the tenant who was causing the problem to try to improve the situation, for example by getting the tenant to agree her dog would be kept on a lead when exiting or entering the block and would not foul the drying green area.

When the council did receive the evidence they needed they acted swiftly and issued a warning to the tenant in line with their policy, so we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that as part of the process for a community buy-out, the council misrepresented information about the valuation of the property to elected members. He also said that officers reneged on an agreement about discounting the sale and unreasonably failed to pass his complaint about these matters to an independent party.

We investigated the complaint and we found that there was no evidence to suggest that the language used about the valuation obtained by Mr C (and the group with whom he was associated) was in any way misleading or misrepresented the facts. Furthermore, there was no evidence to show that an agreement had been given to Mr C about a discounted price upon which the council subsequently reneged. In all, we found that the council dealt appropriately with Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Ms C, who is a GP, complained that the council failed to communicate with her about their handling of a child protection matter that she had raised with a head teacher. We found that the council had acted reasonably in referring Ms C to the body leading the investigation and that their approach to information sharing was in line with the guidance. We were satisfied that in the circumstances the council were correct not to share information not least because it was not clear why Ms C wanted it or what the information would be used for.

We found that the council had responded in a timeous way to Ms C’s complaint. Although Ms C felt that the council should have continued to engage with her further correspondence at the end of the complaints process, we did not agree, not least because the prospect of resolving matters to her satisfaction was remote.

Summary

Mrs C's husband was an adult with incapacity and she was his power of attorney. He was diagnosed with an abscess on his right kidney and had to be transferred by air ambulance to a hospital in another board area. Mrs C accompanied her husband in the air ambulance and arranged to stay in accommodation near to the hospital. She sought to claim back the accommodation expenses from the board but her claim was refused. Mrs C complained that the board acted unreasonably by failing to refund her accommodation expenses.

Following our investigation, we established that the board had followed their patient travel policy when reaching a decision on her claim. Section 10.2 of the policy was clear that travelling in the air ambulance did not make an individual an escort for the purpose of the policy and that they would be responsible for their own accommodation and return expenses. Therefore, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C had a history of bowel problems. He had surgery at Balfour Hospital to rectify a twisted bowel and hernia. Mr C was concerned that his bowel was perforated during the operation, which meant it leaked and was slow to heal, affecting his ability to work. Five months later he had further surgery to repair the damage, after which the healing process was quick. Mr C complained that the board did not provide adequate reasoning for the delay in carrying out the second surgical procedure.

We took independent medical advice on this case from a consultant colorectal surgeon. Whilst we recognised the significant impact that Mr C's post-operative problems had had on his life, we found that he had experienced a recognised complication of this type of surgery. He had developed a fistula (a tube-shaped hollow between organs) possibly caused by one of his stitches opening. We were satisfied that a period of time had to be left between the two surgeries to allow the fistula to repair itself and prevent further damage. The second operation was, therefore, not delayed and we found no evidence of failings by the medical team.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about the treatment which he received from a GP at the medical practice. He said that he had been unwell for a period of years and that it was suspected he had Irritable Bowel Syndrome. He reported to the GP that he had further bowel problems and that he wanted to be referred to hospital. Mr C said that the GP refused to refer him to hospital. He continued to be in pain for a further week, and attended hospital himself where he was diagnosed with septicaemia and a cancerous tumour.

The practice maintained that due to the symptoms reported by Mr C there was no indication that an immediate hospital admission was required. The practice were aware that Mr C had already been referred for a colonoscopy and the GP took steps to give the referral more priority.

We took independent advice from an adviser who is a GP. We found that Mr C's GP was aware of his clinical history, took note of his presenting symptoms and made out an appropriate prescription. There was no indication that Mr C reported acute abdominal pain which warranted emergency hospital admission that day, and it was appropriate to speed up the priority of the colonoscopy referral. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained to us that she had repeatedly asked the medical practice whether they had access to a report on the colonoscopy procedure (examination of the bowel with a camera on a flexible tube) which she underwent in hospital. The practice said that they would have to wait until the hospital advised them of the result. Mrs C contacted the hospital and was told that the practice could have obtained the report electronically. Mrs C complained to the practice and they said that while the result of the report was available electronically it would be for the hospital clinician who requested the report to advise the patient and the practice of the result.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser and concluded that while the result was available electronically it was outwith the role of a GP to report the result to the patient. It was the responsibility of the clinician who arranged the test to report the result. A GP would not be able to interpret the result of the test or know what the patient's management plan was. We also found that the practice had made contact with the hospital who explained that there was a backlog in the reporting of the results and that their involvement actually meant that the result was reported earlier than it would otherwise have been. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that since at least April 2012, her partner (Mr A) had been receiving care for his mental health problems but that it had been inadequate and insufficiently 'holistic'. She said that her views on his illness had either not been sought or had been discounted. She also said that as Mr A's partner, she would have expected to have been more involved and supported.

We took independent advice from a mental health professional and we found that the level of support provided to Mr A, particularly during periods of crisis, was appropriately reactive to Mr A's needs and presenting symptoms. Further, we found that Ms C often accompanied Mr A to his appointments and there was clear evidence that her views were listened to and recorded. While Ms C's difficulties in supporting Mr A were noted, it was also established that she had been supported in a manner and to a degree that was reasonable in the circumstances.

Summary

Ms C was concerned about the way she said she had been treated for colorectal and cardiac problems. Ms C believed that her concerns about her health had not been dealt with reasonably or taken seriously. We obtained independent advice from a consultant colorectal surgeon (the colorectal adviser) and a consultant cardiologist (the cardiology adviser).

We did not find any evidence that the board unreasonably delayed in progressing a referral made by Ms C's GP for rectal bleeding. The advice we received from the colorectal adviser was that all appropriate and necessary tests and scans were carried out at the Western General Hospital. Ms C was diagnosed with internal haemorrhoids, which was considered the most likely cause of her rectal bleeding. We found that the treatment she received for this was reasonable. We also found that the decision to advise against haemorrhoid surgery was a correct assessment and represented good clinical judgement and was in line with surgical guidelines. Taking into account the advice we received, we considered the treatment Ms C received for her colorectal problems was reasonable.

In respect of the concerns raised by Ms C about her cardiology treatment at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, the cardiology adviser said that all reasonable and proportionate investigations had been carried out and had repeatedly shown normal findings. We found that it was appropriate and reasonable of the cardiology department to have concluded that Ms C's symptoms were not of cardiac origin. Overall, the cardiology adviser had identified no failings with regard to the care and treatment provided to Ms C by the cardiology department. We accepted that advice.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about the care their daughter (Miss A) received at Stobhill Hospital for treatment of anorexia nervosa. They were concerned about the care plan that was in place and that the board had acted inappropriately when attempting to remove Mrs C as Miss A's named person under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003. A person being treated under the 2003 Act can choose someone to help protect their interests.

We took independent advice from one of our advisers who is a consultant psychiatrist, and found that the care and treatment was reasonable overall. We considered that staff had appropriately managed situations which could potentially have had a negative effect on Miss A's treatment. We concluded that there was evidence to support that the board were acting in accordance with national guidance and in Miss A's best interests to assist her recovery when attempting to remove Mrs C as named person.