Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that his pain medication was stopped unreasonably following a medication spot check (a check carried out by prison staff to ensure a prisoner has the correct type and amount of medication prescribed to them). Mr C also complained he had not been provided with reasonable alternative medication.

We took independent advice from one of our GP advisers. The adviser was satisfied that as Mr C had failed the medication spot check it was reasonable to have removed and stopped the prescription of the medication. The adviser was also satisfied the alternative medication provided was appropriate. For these reasons, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the prison health centre's handling of his medication for nerve pain was unreasonable. He said he had been prescribed pain medication but when he was admitted to the prison, his prescription was stopped.

We obtained a copy of Mr C's medical records and we also sought independent advice from one of our GP advisers. Mr C's medical records confirmed that the prison health centre carried out an assessment prior to taking the decision to stop his medication. Our adviser said the assessment was appropriate and the decision to stop Mr C's medication had been taken in line with the relevant guidance issued by the General Medical Council.

In light of the evidence available, and given the view of our adviser which we accepted, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained on behalf of her mother (Mrs A), who lived in a nursing home. Ms C complained about a home visit by an out-of-hours GP, and that they were unwilling to provide a second home visit to give a second opinion on the GP's assessment.

Ms C was concerned that her mother had a chest and urine infection, and requested a GP home visit, via NHS 24. A GP assessed Mrs A and found no signs of infection. The following evening Ms C again requested a GP home visit, and another GP visited Mrs A at the nursing home. Following a full assessment and discussion with the nursing home staff and with Ms C, the GP confirmed that there were no signs of infection and no need for treatment. Later that evening Ms C phoned NHS 24 again, and requested a second opinion of her mother, as she had concerns that her mother was distressed. NHS 24 referred Ms C on to the out-of-hours service, where a GP explained that they would not be able to provide a second opinion as the GP had made a full assessment earlier that evening.

We took independent advice from one of our GP advisers who said that the second home visit (the focus of Ms C’s complaint) was thorough and reasonable. Our adviser said that the observations indicated that there was no sign of infection, and the GP's conclusions that there was no need for treatment or hospital admission were appropriate. Our adviser also confirmed that it was not the role of the out-of-hours service to provide a second opinion. On this basis, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained her medical practice had failed to properly diagnose her pelvic infection, resulting in a long stay in hospital and an inability to have children. Ms C said her symptoms had not been properly investigated by the practice and that she had not been properly referred when the practice was unable to identify the cause of her problems.

We took independent advice from one of our medical advisers. The adviser said that Ms C had presented with complex symptoms, from which a clear diagnosis could not be provided. The adviser said that the care and treatment Ms C had received had been appropriate and that the practice had responded reasonably to her reported symptoms, including referring her appropriately to specialists for examination.

Our investigation found Ms C had received a reasonable and appropriate standard of care and treatment from the practice.

Summary

Mr C complained that the board’s prison health centre doctor unreasonably stopped his pain medication for a long-term knee injury, on the basis of alleged intelligence that Mr C misused another pain relief medication he had previously been prescribed. Mr C was concerned that the doctors at the health centre would not give him painkillers because of someone else’s say so, with no concrete proof or evidence and that in the meantime he had been left without effective medication.

We obtained independent medical advice on Mr C’s complaint from a GP. We also sought advice from the office of the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) on disclosure of information/confidentiality.

Our adviser noted that Mr C’s records indicated that the decision to stop his co-dydramol and not replace it with co-codamol was made, at least in part due to reported information regarding past drug misuse. However, our adviser explained that the pain guideline followed by the board suggested that there was no evidence for the continued prescribing of opioid based drugs such as tramadol, co-codamol and co-dydramol in patients with unexplained or persistent pain. Our adviser said it was, therefore, not unreasonable for the board to reduce and then stop Mr C’s tramadol or to stop his co-dydramol and not prescribe co-codamol in its place. Our adviser noted that the doctor prescribed appropriate alternative pain relief treatment for Mr C. We were satisfied that Mr C’s pain relief was appropriately managed by the doctor and the medication prescribed was appropriate for Mr C’s condition.

In terms of the disclosure of the information about past drug misuse, the doctor confirmed he did not disclose the information to Mr C at the time he made the decision to stop his opioid based medication. Based on the advice received from the office of the CMO, we were not critical of the prison health centre’s actions in this regard.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care and treatment that his late mother (Mrs A) received from her GP. Mrs A had attended her GP with symptoms of breathlessness and the GP arranged an x-ray, took a blood sample and prescribed antibiotics. The x-ray result was reported as normal. Mrs A died four days after the consultation from a pulmonary embolus (a clot in the blood vessel that transports blood from the heart to the lungs) caused by deep vein thrombosis. Mr C felt that the GP had taken insufficient note of his mother's breathlessness and should have taken urgent action to establish a further diagnosis as the x-ray had been reported as clear.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser and found that Mrs A's GP had acted reasonably by conducting appropriate investigations in order to establish a diagnosis and that there were no signs that Mrs A would suffer a pulmonary embolus a few days after the consultation. We also found that there was no delay by her GP in their consideration of the x-ray result. We did, however, note that the GP's record-keeping was not as thorough as it could have been and that the GP should reflect on this.

We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained to the university that her son was not appropriately supported by them when he decided to withdraw from his masters course and complete a postgraduate diploma instead. She believed he was entitled to a refund of fees but the university refused his refund application. We considered the policies of the university and their investigation of her concerns. We found that the university had reasonably investigated and responded to the concerns, and had followed their policy in deciding not to make a refund.

Summary

Miss C, a solicitor, complained to us on behalf of her client (Mr A) about how the university had compensated him for disruption to his exams. Mr A had chronic exam anxiety. He had been assessed by the university's disability service and had been found to require a separate room for exams. He was also allowed an extra 15 minutes for each hour. The invigilator for one of Mr A's exams had been cancelled in error, which meant that the exam had started late. Mr A had been allowed the time for which the exam had been delayed plus an additional 15 minutes to compensate him for the disruption. We found that this had been reasonable and did not uphold Miss C's complaints about this.

In a subsequent exam, the invigilator had been ill and had collapsed. He subsequently apologised to Mr A for the incident and offered him some extra time, but did not specify how much, as Mr A said this was not necessary. Miss C complained that the university had failed to offer Mr A any further compensation for this. We did not consider that this was unreasonable and we did not uphold Miss C's complaint about this matter.

Finally, Miss C complained that the university did not follow procedure and refused to consider evidence of special circumstances outside of the current academic year when considering Mr A’s performance at his progress committee meeting. There was no evidence that the progress committee did not follow procedure in considering Mr A’s performance at the meeting and it was for them to decide what information they required. Mr A could have submitted an appeal if he considered that they had failed to take account of medical or other adverse personal circumstances. We did not uphold these aspects of Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his client (Mr A) that Business Stream were using the incorrect Rateable Value (RV) as a basis for the water charges applied to Mr A's property. Mr C said that they should have been using the RV assigned on 31 March 2000, but instead Business Stream were using an amended entry from 1 April 2013.

We found that Business Stream must use the RV from 31 March 2000 unless there has been an amended entry on the Scottish Assessors Association website (which contains information about the current rateable values for properties in Scotland). When there is an amended entry, as there was in this case relating to Mr A's property, Business Stream must use it as the basis for calculating their charges, which they did. For this reason, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the prison unreasonably refused to allow him to update his driving licence in time prior to his release. The prison said Mr C's release had not been confirmed and because of that, they did not consider it appropriate to update his licence. They said they would reconsider Mr C's request if his release was confirmed.

We felt the prison's response to Mr C's request was reasonable and we did not uphold his complaint.