Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Ms C, who is an advice worker, complained on behalf of her client (Mr B) about the care and treatment given to his late sister (Miss A). After a hysterectomy in February 2013, Miss A was diagnosed as having endometrial cancer (cancer in the lining of the womb) from which she made a good recovery. However, in May 2014, her GP referred her urgently back to hospital as she was suffering from nausea. She was seen shortly afterwards and it was considered that her symptoms related to her recent cancer treatment and the drugs she required to take. Miss A then began to complain of pains in her hip and was referred for a CT scan (which uses x-rays and a computer to create detailed images of the inside of the body). The scan results showed that Miss A had a recurrence of cancer and that it was inoperable. Miss A died in November 2014.

Mr B complained that after her initial cancer treatment in February 2013, the board failed to provide his sister with adequate follow-up. He also said that following Miss A's terminal diagnosis in August 2014, she was not given adequate palliative care.

We took independent advice from a consultant gynaecologist. This showed that after Miss A was first diagnosed with endometrial cancer, her case was discussed by a multi-disciplinary team and on their recommendation, she was given radiotherapy and a number of cycles of chemotherapy. She also attended out-patient clinic appointments in April and November 2013 and then again in April 2014. There was also evidence to show that once she was given a terminal diagnosis, palliative care was instituted for Miss A and Macmillan nurses became involved. She was given pain relief and other medication to reduce her symptoms, but the advice we received was that the extent of Miss A's illness was such that her death could not have been prevented. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the prison health centre's handling of his pain medication was unreasonable. He had been prescribed a medicated patch for nerve pain for a trial period of one month. Mr C said that the doctor did not review his treatment throughout the trial period or when the prescription ended. Because of that, he said he was left in pain.

The information available confirmed that Mr C did not raise any concerns with healthcare staff about pain whilst receiving the treatment or after the treatment ended. We took independent advice from one of our GP advisers who noted that Mr C's mental health at the time the medication was being trialled was unstable and he did have episodes of self harm which involved him creating more damage to his wound. Because of that, our adviser considered that a routine review of Mr C's treatment for pain was not feasible at that time, and management of his acute and unpredictable mental health was the priority. In addition, our adviser noted that it was not practicable or common practice for doctors to contact patients routinely to enquire whether their prescribed medication was sufficient. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained that the board failed to respond appropriately to his complaint but we did not agree.

Summary

Mrs C's late husband (Mr C) was receiving treatment for prostate cancer. His condition deteriorated and Mrs C complained that GPs at the practice failed to take into account concerns that the medication to treat the cancer was the cause of the problems and that Mr C had a history of severe allergic reactions. Mrs C said that the GPs did not listen to her concerns and that Mr C rapidly deteriorated and died following a heart attack caused by an allergic reaction to the medication. She said that she and her husband were not warned about the possible side effects of the medication, and that staff failed to take reasonable action to resolve matters.

We took independent advice from one of our medical advisers. We found that the care and treatment provided to Mr C was reasonable, and that the practice took Mr C's symptoms into account and acted appropriately in addressing his concerns about his medication. We also found that Mr C had suffered an acute heart attack and there was no indication to suggest that this was imminent. As such, his condition could not have been anticipated.

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf of her husband (Mr C). She said that after he was referred to hospital for knee problems, the board failed to provide Mr C with appropriate treatment. She said that it must have been obvious following the results of an x-ray, taken a few months later, that an arthroscopy (a minimally-invasive surgical procedure to examine, and sometimes treat, joint damage) would not solve Mr C's problems, and that he required a total knee replacement. Nevertheless, an arthroscopy was carried out. Mrs C said that her husband continued to experience unacceptable levels of pain and was told to return to his GP to be referred back to hospital. It was later decided that he required a total knee replacement. Mrs C said that it was unreasonable to require her husband to go back to the bottom of the waiting list.

We took independent advice from a consultant in orthopaedic and trauma surgery and found that, at the time of Mr C's x-ray, his knee did not require replacement. In the circumstances, it was reasonable to first undertake the alternative, conservative treatment of an arthroscopy, even though a successful outcome was not guaranteed (and this was explained to him). Some time later, after his knee was shown to have deteriorated, his GP referred him back to hospital for consideration. At that point, Mr C was recommended to have a total knee replacement and, in accordance with policy and practice, he was required to join a waiting list for his operation. In these circumstances, the complaint was not upheld.

Summary

Mr C applied to study at the university and was offered a place with the fee status of 'rest of UK'. After he accepted the offer, Mr C asked the university to reassess his fee status to 'home/EU'. The university did this and, as a result, Mr C lost his place at the university. Mr C complained to us that the university failed to explain how his offer would be reassessed, and that they failed to tell him when he made his fee status enquiry that all funded places for home/EU students had been filled.

We found the university told Mr C that if he wanted them to reassess his fee status, and if his fee status changed to home/EU, they would re-evaluate his application under their home/EU application framework and they may change or cancel the offer previously made to him. Mr C told us he assumed that he would not lose his place at the university as a result of the reassessment of his fee status. Because of this assumption, he did not contact the university for more information about how reassessment would take place, and what exactly this could mean for him. In our view, it was not reasonable to hold the university responsible for Mr C's assumptions.

Mr C believed he had a choice about which fee status category to be in. It was the university's policy that applicants could not choose their fee status. The university assessed fee status themselves on the basis of information provided by applicants. It was also university policy that the most recent fee status assessment was the one that remained valid, and an applicant could not decide to go back to a previous fee status, even if their offer was withdrawn following fee status reassessment. The university expected applicants to provide correct information so they could assess fee status accurately, and the process was not designed to help applicants choose which fee status category they wanted. Given this, we accepted the university's explanation of why they would not tell Mr C that there were no places left in the home/EU fee category. This information was not relevant to the reassessment of Mr C's fee status, which was a process he started. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

The decision was taken to return Mr C to more secure conditions. This happened when concerns were raised about his appearance after his return to prison from an outside work placement in the community. Mr C complained because he said the proper process was not followed prior to that decision being taken. In particular, Mr C said he was not placed on report for breaching prison rules or his licence conditions. He was also unhappy that a more in-depth drug test was not carried out to prove he had not taken any illicit substances. Mr C also questioned why he had retained his low supervision level after being returned to closed conditions.

There is nothing contained within the prison rules or the relevant guidance to suggest that Mr C should have been placed on report. In addition, the prison used the normal drugs testing processes available to them. The decision to carry out any further testing would have been at the discretion of the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), as was the decision to allow Mr C to retain his low supervision level.

We were satisfied that the process had been followed appropriately by the SPS, and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C wanted to be transferred to the prison nearest his home for family reasons, and he complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had not taken his family circumstances into account in dealing with his transfer request. We found that the SPS were aware of Mr C's family circumstances and had discussed them with him. However, the SPS had also explained to Mr C the reasons why a transfer to his local prison was unlikely. There was no evidence that the SPS had failed to follow relevant procedures. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that his prison failed to provide him with support to deal with his drug addiction. We found that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) were not responsible for providing this particular support, as it was a matter for the NHS. Mr C said he was seeking specific medication, and that the SPS should transfer him to another prison in the hope of getting the medication. The SPS said this was not a valid reason for transfer because a prison transfer would not necessarily resolve Mr C’s wish to obtain specific medication. This is because prescribing medication is a matter for the NHS, not the SPS. We did not uphold Mr C’s complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) unreasonably failed to follow the relevant policy when dealing with his progression. In particular, Mr C said he remained in closed conditions six years after the expiry of the punishment part of his sentence when he should have progressed through less secure conditions before reaching open conditions.

In response to Mr C's complaint on the matter, the SPS said they were managing his progression in line with the relevant policies in place. In particular, in relation to those prisoners serving a life sentence, the SPS risk management and progression guidance indicates that a prisoner's preparation-for-release phase can start no earlier than four years before the expiry of the punishment part of their sentence. However, the guidance clearly states that the timing describes the best-case scenario and other factors such as a prisoner's supervision level, conduct in custody, drug test results and participation in offending behaviour programmes may affect the timing of the release phase. In addition, the SPS told us that in Mr C's case, whilst the punishment part of his sentence had expired, he had outstanding programme needs that must be addressed before he could be considered for progression to less secure conditions.

It is clear that the timings described in the guidance set out the best-case scenario and each prisoner’s case will be dealt with on its own merits, taking into account their own individual circumstances. The guidance does not suggest there is an automatic progression route for prisoners with fixed timescales. Instead, it sets out a framework within which the SPS can assess the needs of, and risks presented by, individual prisoners. The evidence available in Mr C's case indicated that his progression was being managed by the SPS in line with the relevant policy and we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application for an extension to a neighbouring property. He was concerned that the council accepted plans of the proposed extension that resulted in an incorrect impression being given of the size of the extension, and that there were errors in the report prepared on the application. He was also concerned that the extension was out of character with the surrounding area and would have a detrimental effect on his amenity (enjoyment of property or surroundings), in that his sunlight and daylight would be compromised. Mr C complained that the council had failed to respond to his concerns about these issues. He also complained that the council had failed to follow their complaints procedure.

During our investigation we took independent advice from our planning adviser. We found that, while there were some errors in the report prepared on the planning application, these were not material to the decision on the application. We were also aware that the professional judgement of the council was that the development would not have a detrimental impact on neighbourhood character or amenity. We were satisfied that the council properly took into account the relevant guidance and planning policies. In the absence of evidence of procedural omissions in the council's handling of the application we did not uphold this complaint.

On the issue of sunlight and daylight, our adviser said that the council properly assessed these as planning authority, and that the development would not result in any unreasonable loss of natural light to neighbouring properties. We were satisfied that the council had reasonably responded to Mr C's concerns about these issues and we did not uphold the complaint.

We were also satisfied that the council considered and reasonably responded to Mr C’s representations. While we were concerned that, although Mr C indicated during stage one of the council's complaints process that he wanted to submit further comments, he was not then given a reasonable opportunity to do so, we were satisfied that he was able to submit detailed comments during the council's consideration of his complaint at stage two.