Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C, who was diagnosed with a personality disorder, had some of his medications reduced and stopped soon after entering prison (although he was still on one anti-psychotic medication). He was then transferred to a different prison, where he raised concerns about his medication and asked to be put back on his original medication. Mr C's lawyers also wrote to the prison and his psychiatrist, asking for him to be returned to this medication. Mr C complained about the board's failure to return him to his previous medication.

The board said that Mr C's medication had been assessed on several occasions, including by his psychiatrist from the community (who had prescribed his previous medications), and his medication was prescribed and reviewed as recommended by the psychiatrists.

After taking independent advice from an experienced psychiatrist, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. We found that Mr C's medication had been appropriately reviewed by psychiatrists, and there was no clinical reason to restart Mr C's previous medications, particularly as several of these medications were addictive and not for long-term use. We also found that Mr C's psychiatrist from the community had reviewed Mr C while he was in a previous prison, and was in agreement with his current medication.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of the family of Miss A that the care and treatment she received from the Royal Aberdeen Children's Hospital was unreasonable in so far as it was decided not to provide her with further Intravenous Immunoglobulin Treatment (IVIG, the administration of blood plasma containing antibodies intravenously/into the veins).

Miss A has suffered a rare, slow progressive peripheral nerve dysfunction since she was small. It was not able to diagnose this definitively until 2012. Before that, Miss A had been treated with IVIG on the basis that there was nothing to lose by doing so. Her mother, Mrs A, thought that IVIG made a significant improvement to her condition and wished the treatment to continue. However, the board were of the view that once a diagnosis had been made which indicated Miss A's inability to process vitamin B2, she should be treated with riboflavin.

The complaint was investigated and we took independent advice from a paediatric neurologist. This showed that Miss A's treatment was in accordance with current medical practice and was reasonable; there would be no benefit from her receiving IVIG. Accordingly, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C, an advice worker, complained on behalf of her client (Mrs A) that the care and treatment provided by her medical practice between June and August 2011 was unreasonable.

Mrs A had a history of abdominal and gynaecological (relating to the female reproductive system) problems and some stress-related illness. She saw three different GPs in June, July and August 2011 for recurrent symptoms of bloating and stomach pain. Some investigations were undertaken but no conclusive results were obtained. Mrs A was seen again by one of the GPs in November 2011 and was referred on a routine basis for a colonoscopy (examination of the intestines by a camera). Further investigations were undertaken in February 2012 and Mrs A was diagnosed with ovarian (part of the female reproductive system) cancer later that month. She has since undergone treatment that was ongoing at the time she complained to us.

Our investigation included taking independent medical advice from one of our GP advisers. They considered that in view of the symptoms reported by Mrs A, the 'watchful waiting' approach taken by the GPs between June and August 2011 was reasonable and in line with national guidance in place at the time. However, our adviser considered that, in view of the duration of Mrs A's symptoms by the time she was seen in November 2011, the referral made at that time should have been made on an urgent basis. This would have indicated a suspicion of cancer, which would have meant that she would have been seen within two weeks of the referral. The adviser did not, however, consider that the resultant six-week delay had an effect on the overall outcome or treatment for Mrs A. The complaint was not upheld but the findings were drawn to the attention of the GPs involved.

Summary

Mrs C had a complex medical history including undergoing brain surgery in 2004. She continued to experience a variety of symptoms that were very concerning, and she complained about aspects of the care and treatment she received from her medical practice in 2013 and 2014 in relation to medication and communication.

We took independent advice from one of our medical advisers. We found that the practice communicated with Mrs C in a reasonable way in that they attempted to explain treatment decisions. We also found that the practice took reasonable steps to explore the possibility of a link between Mrs C's previous surgery and her current symptoms, and that the medication they had prescribed was reasonable.

Summary

In the fourth year of his Masters degree, Mr C's dissertation was found to contain work taken from other sources and he had not acknowledged the sources of the copied work. Although the university's disciplinary hearing found plagiarism had been committed, Mr C was allowed to re-submit the dissertation whilst continuing with his fifth year of studies. He was told to amend his original piece of work. When Mr C re-submitted, it was again found to contain plagiarism and, after a second disciplinary meeting, the university terminated his studies. Mr C said that the university did not follow their academic regulations and he should not have been allowed to make a re-submission of the original piece of work. He also reported that he was not given sufficient time to re-submit or adequate instruction about what was required for the re-submission. We considered all the correspondence between Mr C and the university, the records of meetings, the university's regulations on academic student discipline and their responses to Mr C's requests for clarification. We found that the university had shown leniency as their regulations allowed, and asked him to resubmit his work for a course where no resit was normally permitted. Mr C had been told to re-work his original dissertation to ensure that no plagiarism remained, but he did not follow the advice he was given.

Summary

A decision was taken to suspend Mr C from a placement in the third year of his degree course and a fail was recorded against the placement. Mr C listed many points of dissatisfaction with the university, the majority of which were disagreement with their academic and professional judgements. Mr C said he understood that his suspension from placement would be recorded as a non-placement and that he would be allowed to undertake another placement as if it were his first attempt. He appealed the results of three courses that the university had recorded as fails. His appeal was partly upheld when the university decided that without his placement it was not possible to attempt one of his courses. His other two courses remained recorded by the university as fails and he was required to re-take them as second attempts. He did not do this as he felt he had been treated unfairly when he was suspended from his placement and a fail recorded. Our investigation considered all the correspondence between the university and Mr C, the university's appeals procedure, and the records of their investigation into his concerns. We found that the university had fully considered Mr C's circumstances and followed their procedures in dealing with his concerns and his appeal.

Summary

Mr C alerted staff in the prison that he was experiencing chest pain, and it was agreed that he should attend hospital. However, Mr C decided not to attend and staff agreed to carry out regular observation checks on him throughout the night. Mr C complained because he said staff unreasonably failed to carry out observation checks on him. The prison said the checks were carried out but Mr C disputed that.

The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) told us that observations were only documented when the prisoner being monitored was being managed in line with the suicide risk management strategy and that Mr C was not being monitored under that policy. Instead, the SPS provided a copy of the log completed by the nightshift manager which confirmed that, after taking advice from the doctor, it was agreed that Mr C could not be forced to attend hospital and, because of that, his condition should be monitored throughout the night. We also obtained a copy of the entry recorded in Mr C's medical record which confirmed that he did not seek any intervention or assessment the following morning.

The information confirmed that there would normally only be a requirement for a prison to keep a record of any observation checks carried out if the prisoner being monitored is being managed under suicide risk management strategy. That did not apply in Mr C's case so the only record that existed was the log completed by the nightshift manager. The entry confirmed that the doctor had indicated that because Mr C refused to attend hospital, his condition should be monitored by staff throughout the night. The SPS confirmed to us that the nightshift manager advised that Mr C was monitored. Whilst we recognised Mr C's position that staff did not monitor him regularly, without further supporting evidence being available, we were unable to uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council failed to deal with flooding risk to her croft and an adjacent new development. She said that a developer came onto the croft without permission, and upgraded a pipe (which drained his field into their drainage system) with a larger size pipe. The developer then applied for permission for a new development, including a surface water drain using the new pipe. Mrs C objected to the application on the basis that the drain would not be able to cope with the volume of water from the development. The council's road services agreed, and the developer amended the application. The council approved the amended application, although Mrs C still thought the system would not be effective.

After the development started, the site flooded several times. Mrs C reported this to the council, who negotiated with the developer. It was agreed that the council would carry out works to reduce the upstream catchment area, and the developer would undertake further remedial works if a flooding problem remained. The council carried out their works, and the developer undertook some works to protect the new development, including taking steps to divert overland water onto Mrs C's croft, and deepening the drainage ditch on her land (without permission). However, the croft and development site flooded again a few years later. Although the council asked the developer to carry out remedial works as agreed, they refused. The council then said that they were not able to enforce the agreement with the developer, and suggested that Mrs C pay to upgrade the drainage system if she was concerned about flooding.

After taking independent advice from our planning adviser, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaints. We found that the council had dealt with the original application in line with planning requirements, and the issue of the developer working on Mrs C's land was a private matter between them. We also found that the council had acted within their powers to manage flood risk in undertaking remedial works. The adviser was concerned that the council were not clearer about their role (for example, when they negotiated an agreement with the developer, Mrs C thought she could rely on this). However, we found no evidence that the council failed to comply with policies or the relevant requirements.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's decision to allow changes to a planning application for a house in the local conservation area by considering them as a non-material variation. Mr C was concerned that this meant that residents did not have the right to object to the development. In addition, he was concerned that the council had failed to take into account relevant policies when granting permission for the felling of three trees on the site.

We found that the changes to the original design actually reduced the size of the proposals and meant that the impact on the area of the new build would be less, under the new proposals, than it would have been under the original application. We considered that the planning officer's decision to consider this as a non-material variation, rather than requiring a new application, was reasonable. We also noted the council's reasons for allowing the removal of the trees and noted that they would be replaced with native varieties. As these were both discretionary decisions of the council, and as we found no evidence of administrative failure in the way the council reached their decision, we did not uphold these complaints.

Summary

Ms C complained to us following the Scottish Information Commissioner's decision that the council had complied with the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 in responding to her request for a breakdown of statutory notice costs: she said that the council had unreasonably failed to provide her with a satisfactory explanation about how the final accounts for repairs to a tenement (where she was an owner) had been calculated. Ms C also complained that the council had allowed additional works to be started before a statutory notice had been served.

From our investigation we did not uphold Ms C's complaint because we found that the information she had been provided with by the council followed their usual practice, and they had not, therefore, acted unreasonably. Further, the additional works had been the subject of an emergency notice, and the council had the power under the relevant legislation to issue such a notice after the works had commenced.