Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that, when his wife (Mrs C) phoned the GP practice for a home visit, the GP should have phoned for an ambulance instead. He also complained that the GP did not arrive at their home for just over an hour.

We took independent advice from one of our GP advisers. They considered that it was clear from the medical records, and from a discussion the GP had with the district nurse who had made a routine visit to Mrs C earlier that day, that there was no reason for an ambulance to have been called on the basis of Mrs C's phone call. We noted that the medical records recorded the call as taking place about half an hour later than Mr C had indicated. However, regardless of the exact time, the adviser considered that the GP had arrived very promptly. When the GP saw and examined Mrs C, the GP felt that Mrs C had a significant infection. In line with relevant medical guidelines, she arranged hospital admission at that time. However, that decision was based on a physical examination, not the phone call. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C is the mother of a young child who was born with a number of health issues. She complained that when her child was being assessed for support needs, the community paediatric consultant (the consultant) told her, incorrectly, that her child suffered from a particular genetic syndrome. Ms C said that this information was then relayed to other health and social care professionals causing her distress and upset.

We took independent advice from a consultant community paediatrician. We found that there was no evidence to show that the consultant had provided incorrect information and that, as soon as the consultant discovered that incorrect information was being repeated, she took steps to correct it and to advise all concerned. The child was promptly referred to a consultant in clinical genetics to establish a diagnosis. The complaint was not upheld.

Summary

Mr C complained to the board that a health centre providing physiotherapy treatment delayed in referring him for a scan of his spine and in referring him to a special clinic for managing pain (the pain clinic).

In responding to the complaint, the board found that Mr C's GP could have referred him directly for a scan, saving a three-month delay. The board also felt that the time taken for Mr C to be referred to the pain clinic was acceptable.

We took independent advice from two of our medical advisers who reviewed the care and treatment Mr C had received. Our physiotherapy adviser considered that there was evidence that Mr C's treatment was reasonable and that there was no undue delay in him being referred to the pain clinic (given that further investigations and decisions about any surgery needed to take place in the first instance). Our GP adviser also considered that the GP records showed Mr C did not meet the national criteria for direct access to receive a scan. He considered that it was appropriate Mr C was instead referred to a specialist who subsequently made the decision for a scan to be performed. We concluded that Mr C received appropriate care and treatment for his back pain.

Summary

Mrs C complained about one of her mother (Mrs A)'s GPs. Mrs C said the GP should have sent Mrs A to hospital after seeing her at a home visit. Several days later another GP admitted Mrs A to hospital, where she died.

We looked at Mrs A's medical notes and the GP's file on Mrs C's complaint. We also took independent advice from one of our GP advisers. We found that the GP provided appropriate treatment to Mrs A at the home visit, and there were no indications at the visit that Mrs A should have been admitted to hospital as an emergency. We also found that, in the circumstances, Mrs A's deterioration several days later could not have been foreseen at the home visit.

We concluded that the care provided to Mrs A at the home visit was reasonable in the circumstances, and that the GP did not unreasonably fail to send Mrs A to hospital on that day. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to the college about the treatment he received when he tried to use a staff photocopier. The college then received complaints about him from staff and he was suspended pending an investigation. His case was referred to a disciplinary hearing. However, Mr C did not receive the letter asking him to attend the hearing. When the hearing took place, the college dismissed him. He said they did not follow their procedures because they did not tell him what the complaints against him were. He then appealed against the decision to dismiss him. His appeal was not upheld and he appealed to the principal that proper procedures had not been followed in the first appeal process.

In relation to the provision of information and support to Mr C, we found that, while the college could have responded more promptly in answering questions that Mr C raised with them, they took a reasonable and proportionate approach to his correspondence. We also found that they had provided him with appropriate means of support, though he had not always chosen to take this up.

We reviewed how the college applied their policies and procedures in handling the complaints and the appeal procedures. We found that they appropriately applied their complaints handling procedure in relation to Mr C's complaints. We noted that it was unfortunate that an important letter had gone missing, and we raised a concern that Mr C was potentially not provided with enough information ahead of a disciplinary hearing. However, overall we found the college had appropriately applied their managing student behaviour procedure in relation to the complaints raised by staff. We also found that Mr C's appeals against dismissal and against the appeal procedure were appropriately handled.

Summary

Mr C complained that Scottish Water had failed to consult appropriately before deciding to construct a new water treatment works at a site neighbouring his property. He said Scottish Water had deliberately misled his parliamentary and local council representatives about the process used to select this site and that the site selection process had lacked transparency.

Scottish Water accepted that some of their responses to Mr C could have explained the site selection process more clearly. They said the construction of the treatment works was essential and that they had followed the appropriate site selection process, before consulting with the local community. They said they had followed their consultation code, which had been approved by the Scottish Government.

We found that Scottish Water were not obliged under their consultation code to consult with local residents during the site selection process. Consultation had been carried out prior to the construction of the new treatment works, which had received the appropriate planning permission. Although Scottish Water had acknowledged that they could have provided fuller responses to Mr C's enquiries, there was no evidence they had deliberately misled his elected representatives. We also found that the site selection process was an internal process and the evidence available showed it had been appropriately conducted in line with these internal procedures.

Summary

Mr C was escorted to hospital. An officer packed some of Mr C's clothing into a bag to take to hospital. Mr C then submitted a claim to the prison because he said that the clothing that was packed by the officer had gone missing. The prison did not uphold Mr C's claim. He complained to us that the prison's handling of his claim for lost property was unreasonable because staff failed to investigate the matter properly. In addition, he said staff incorrectly marked the missing items as 'condemned' (destroyed at the request of the prisoner) on his property card. Mr C said he asked staff to remove the missing items from his property card as he said that the items had been lost by staff.

Mr C's property card suggested that the items he claimed were missing were in his use before being condemned by staff. Mr C disputed asking staff to condemn the property but the evidence available showed that he submitted a condemn mandate form which clearly states that the items listed will be condemned, therefore, we concluded that staff appropriately condemned the items. In addition, Mr C's care plan from the time in question confirmed that he was permitted to have his own clothing in use, and the record completed on the day he was taken to hospital did not show that any property was taken with Mr C to or from hospital. In light of the evidence available, we concluded that the prison's handling of Mr C's claim was appropriate. The information we saw demonstrated that the prison's decision on Mr C's claim was based on the evidence available and, because of that, we did not uphold the complaint.

Having reviewed Mr C's complaint forms, we also considered that the prison's handling of his complaints was reasonable. We recognised that Mr C considered that the prison failed to properly investigate the loss of his initial claim form. However, in their response, the prison confirmed that the form could not be located and they apologised for that. The prison also invited Mr C to submit a new claim form. In our view, the prison's response was reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C was given a life sentence in 2011 and throughout her time in custody she had not progressed to less secure conditions. Because of that, she complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had failed to appropriately support her progression which meant that she would not be in a position to satisfy the parole board's requirements for release.

In line with the normal process, the SPS assessed Ms C's suitability for offending behaviour programmes. She met the criteria for the Female Offending Behaviour Programme. However, it was reported that Ms C had indicated that she would find group work intimidating and she wanted to be offered an alternative way to complete the work. Normally, a prisoner is required to address their offending behaviour through groupwork before they can be considered for progression to less secure conditions.

In recognition of Ms C's concerns, the prison arranged for preparatory work to take place, and the outcome of that work was reported to the prison's risk management team. In that report, it was noted that the preparatory work undertaken with Ms C was very similar to the programme work she would be required to participate in and she had been able to engage ppropriately. Therefore, the prison concluded that Ms C should participate in the programme prior to her application for progression to less secure conditions being considered.

It was clear Ms C felt unable to participate in group work. However, the evidence available indicated that the prison took appropriate action in an effort to support her participation in group work. In addition, the decision on how a prisoner should undertake offence-related work is a matter for the SPS to decide. Therefore, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained to the Care Inspectorate about the care home her father was staying in. She complained about a range of issues, including how often bedding was changed, concerns about electric reclining chairs, and the lack of a care plan for her father. The Care Inspectorate responded to her complaints (they upheld one of her complaints, but did not uphold the others), and Ms C then complained to us that they had failed to properly investigate her complaint.

Our investigation examined whether or not the Care Inspectorate followed their normal process in investigating Ms C's complaint, and whether or not they clearly informed her of the outcome. We found that they followed their complaints handling procedure properly. They acknowledged Ms C's complaint and issued a decision within the appropriate timescales, and informed her of her right to request a review. When she made this request they reviewed their decision and, again, issued her with a final decision within correct timescales. It was clear from the information provided to us that the Care Inspectorate planned and carried out a comprehensive investigation, and communicated their findings clearly. Therefore, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had charged him a call-out fee for their shared repair service. The council advised that there would be a call-out charge if the issue was not considered as an emergency. When a council officer attended Mr C's property it did not appear to be an emergency and no action was taken, and a call-out charge was issued to Mr C.

We found that Mr C had been informed of the possibility of a call-out charge and there was no evidence that the issue should have been noted as an emergency. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.