Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

C complained that the board failed to investigate, diagnose and treat gastrointestinal (relating to the stomach and intestines) problems and swallowing difficulties that they had experienced over a number of years. As a result of previous abuse, C required invasive procedures to be carried out under general anaesthetic. C complained that the board placed unreasonable emphasis on their trauma when making decisions about their treatment.

We took independent clinical advice from a consultant in gastroenterology (medicine of the digestive system and its disorders) and hepatology (liver disease). We considered C's initial treatment plan to be reasonable: a CT scan of C's colon followed by an upper GI endoscopy (a medical procedure where a tube-like instrumentis put into the body to look inside) as recommended by the private clinic that they attended, and a colonoscopy (examination of the bowel with a camera on aflexible tube) if indicated by the results of the CT scan. We found that the decision not to carry out a colonoscopy at this stage was reasonable, given the risks of performing this under general anaesthetic and the previous normal investigations.

We were critical of the board's failure to offer C a flexible sigmoidoscopy (an imaging test done to monitor the colon and rectum for the presence of ulcers, polyps or other abnormalities) after they developed rectal bleeding, but noted that this did not impact on C's overall treatment plan. C had gone on to have a colonoscopy under a different NHS board, which did not identify any significant pathology.

We did not consider the emphasis placed on C's childhood trauma to be excessive and we noted that reasonable investigations were carried out into C's swallowing difficulties.

Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

With regard to C's complaint that the board's complaint response contained inaccurate information, we found that generally their response was thorough and detailed. With the exception of an incorrect reference to C having anaemia, we found that the board's response to be factually accurate with clear explanations as to what investigations had been carried out and why. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C complained on behalf of their late child (A) who died of cancer. A received treatment from the dermatology department for a mole on their back. The mole was removed and, following testing, it was found to be cancerous.

A had further treatment from the plastic surgery department to excise (remove by cutting) more tissue from the area, which was tested and confirmed no cancer cells were present. After, A presented with abnormal lymph nodes, tests confirmed that they were cancerous. A underwent a procedure to remove the lymph nodes and some painful lumps on their body. After this procedure, A refused any further treatment.

C complained that the board did not do enough in the early stages to treat A's cancer. C felt that the procedure to remove the initial mole should have been more thorough, that A should have been monitored more closely for any spread of cancer, and that other treatments should have been considered at an earlier date. C said that they were unhappy with the board's communication with A and their family and that they were unhappy with the way in which the board handled their complaint, as they felt it was not consistent with their recollection of events.

We sought independent advice from clinical advisers with relevant experience. Both advisers reached the view that the care and treatment provided to A by the dermatology and plastic surgery departments were reasonable both in the early stages, and when the cancer later returned. It was also their view that the board's communication with A and their family members was reasonable.

In light of the evidence and the advice received, we found that the care and treatment provided to A and the communication from the board to A and their family was reasonable. We also found that the board's response to C's complaint was in line with what was recorded in the medical records. Our investigation did not identify any evidence that would cause us to doubt the board's position as detailed in their response. Therefore, we considered that the board handled and responded to C's complaint reasonably.

For the reasons set out above, we did not uphold C's complaints.

Summary

C complained that Business Stream had not billed their business accurately. C said that they had been told by an employee of Scottish Water that their premises did not drain into the public network, but into a nearby river. Business Stream had initially not accepted this, stating that Scottish Water required further site visits to verify the situation. C also complained that Business Stream had taken too long to resolve the situation.

We found that, although Scottish Water had initially considered that C was being charged for water they were not liable for, they thereafter wanted to investigate matters further. We found that Business Stream had tried to resolve matters for C and were acting in good faith on the advice that they had received from Scottish Water in this connection. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.

We also found that, although colleagues of C's had contacted Business Stream on several occasions to complain that they were not liable for drainage charges, they had not provided the information Business Stream had requested, nor had they followed up the complaints. We considered that Business Stream had explained clearly what information they required and that they had pursued the matter with Scottish Water once this had been provided. We found that they had handled C's complaint reasonably and did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

C complained on behalf of their parent (A). A had dementia, lived in their own home and took a number of medications. C raised concerns that A was not able to take their medication safely without supervision.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that the primary responsibility of the practice was to prescribe appropriate medication for A's condition. They also had a role in assessing A's mental state and making appropriate referrals to other specialists. In terms of those responsibilities, we found that there was no evidence of failure on the practice's part.

There was a problem with one of A's prescriptions when they changed pharmacy. The practice addressed this problem quickly and an appropriate apology was given. As such, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C complained on behalf of their parent (A) about the actions taken by the board. A took a number of medications and over the years C became concerned about A's capacity to administer their own medication safely. There was an accidental overdose when A took too much Warfarin (a blood thinning medication). C complained about the care and treatment that A received following the overdose and that the board failed to ensure A could safely administer their medication.

We took independent advice from a specialist district nurse. We found that, as A was not bleeding, it was suitable for them to be treated in the community. Appropriate monitoring was carried out and no untoward events occurred for A while they were managed in the community.

We noted that district nurses had a role to play in keeping A safe. However, it was not normally their role to administer regular medication and not their sole responsibility to ensure that A was supported in their home to carry out everyday tasks safely. We found that the district nurses had acted reasonably and appropriately, and responded promptly when problems had arisen. We also noted that the record-keeping was of a very high standard.

We did not uphold C's complaints.

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment they received from the board for their hearing problems, and for their problems of dizziness/loss of balance.

We took independent advice from an ear nose and throat (ENT) specialist. We found that C's hearing problems were investigated appropriately and they were given multiple repeated investigations. We also found that appropriate steps were taken to investigate C's problems of dizziness/loss of balance. Therefore, we did not uphold C's complaints.

Summary

C complained to the practice about the lack of care provided to their late parent (A). C said that A had reported breathing and sleeping problems in a telephone consultation to the GP but the GP had only provided medication and A died from a suspected heart attack a week later. The practice believed that appropriate treatment had been provided.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that there was no evidence that A had reported breathing problems to the GP and that there were no recorded symptoms which would have indicated that A required a face-to-face GP consultation, a hospital admission, or that A would suffer a sudden event a week after the telephone consultation. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C, a support and advocacy worker, complained on behalf of the late A and their family. A had complex care needs and lived at home. C complained that the council failed to deliver an appropriate care plan to meet A's assessed and eligible needs.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the council took reasonable action to assess A's care needs, in line with relevant guidance and policies. We considered that the council took reasonable action to deliver a care plan to meet A's needs. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Prior to 2015, C’s grandchild was placed in their care by social work. C was granted a Section 11 Residence Order by a court (also known as a Kinship Care Order, conveying parental rights and responsibilities in respect of the child). The case was then closed to social work in mid-2015.

C complained that the council did not contact them directly to advise of the changes to the kinship care legislation in October 2015. C stated that they found out that the law had changed through word-of-mouth in September 2019. C also complained that when they applied for a kinship care allowance this was only backdated to the date of their application and not to October 2015.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that the legislation and guidance did not require the council to directly contact all closed cases where a section 11 order was in place to notify them of the changes. The legislation requires local authorities to publish certain information about kinship care assistance and the council provided evidence that they had done this. We also found that there was no indication in the legislation and guidance that C’s particular circumstances entitled them to a backdated allowance to October 2015.

We did not uphold C’s complaints.

Summary

C complained about the association’s response to anti-social behaviour. C said this had been continual since they moved into their property. It was affecting them and in particular, their child. C said that the association had failed to take meaningful action, or follow up properly on their reports. C believed that they had been misled about what the association would do and the evidence they submitted had been disregarded.

We found that the association had followed their procedures and could evidence the action they had taken in response to C’s complaints. This included liaising with Police Scotland, contacting the tenant responsible and canvassing other residents for corroborating evidence. We found that the association had been restricted by limitations imposed on staff by COVID-19, but that they had responded reasonably and appropriately to C’s concerns. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.

C also said their complaint had been investigated by members of staff they specifically did not want involved in their complaint. The association had acknowledged this and said this was due to human error on the part of staff who had recorded the complaint. They had failed to note C’s concerns, resulting in the complaint being allocated to the wrong person. We found that the association had taken the appropriate action to address this mistake. We also found that although C had been concerned about this, there was no evidence it had materially affected the investigation of their complaint. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.