Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mrs C complained that her husband (Mr C) received inadequate medical and nursing treatment after being admitted to the Western General Hospital. She was particularly concerned by a decision to place him on the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP: a form of end of life care) which provides palliative care (care provided solely to prevent or relieve suffering). Mrs C believed that this decision hastened her husband's death, and pointed out that a hospice referral form appeared to give him a prognosis (forecast) of at least six months.

Our investigation found that Mr C had been admitted with a urine infection. He was, however, also suffering from advanced lung cancer, which had spread to his brain. Although his urine infection was successfully treated, Mr C deteriorated rapidly and a scan of his brain revealed that the cancer had spread faster and further than previously thought. We took independent medical advice from two advisers: a consultant oncologist (cancer specialist), and a nursing adviser. Our oncologist adviser said that Mr C's treatment had been reasonable and that the decision to place him on the LCP was appropriate. Our nursing adviser said Mr C had received a reasonable standard of nursing treatment. We found no evidence that Mr C was not treated appropriately.

Summary

Mr C complained that a nurse in a prison health centre did not deal with his referral form appropriately. Mr C asked to see the mental health team and he outlined his reasons for his request. A nurse discussed his referral with him and asked questions that Mr C felt were inappropriate.

We reviewed the board's response to Mr C's complaint in which they explained that the nurse was trying to find out what had led to the symptoms he described in his referral form. They also commented that the symptoms described would prompt most healthcare professionals to ask questions around the causes. The board also noted Mr C's view that the nurse had not read his referral and because of that, had questioned him unnecessarily. They assured him that was not the nurse's intention and offered an apology if that was his impression.

We took independent medical advice on this from our GP adviser, who told us that the nurse's actions in Mr C's case were reasonable and appropriate. In light of that, and having reviewed the board's response, we were satisfied that the nurse handled Mr C's referral appropriately, and we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained to the board about the lack of clinical supervision which was provided to her late daughter (Miss A) by clinicians at Yorkhill Hospital. Miss A had a number of complex medical conditions and had had repeated hospital admissions over the years. When Miss A showed signs of deterioration during the latest admission, Ms C felt that staff showed a lack of urgency and that there appeared to be a lack of senior clinician involvement in her care. The board said that Miss A was appropriately supervised by senior clinicians although they apologised that communication with Miss A's family about her chances of survival could have been improved. We took independent medical advice from a specialist in paediatric intensive care who reviewed Miss A's medical records and was satisfied that the standard of senior clinician input into Miss A's medical treatment was of an appropriate standard. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C visited the Western Infirmary, Glasgow as she was feeling unwell. She complained about the attitude of a doctor who spoke to her, and the care and treatment they provided. Mrs C also complained about the board’s response to her complaint.

Mrs C’s account of her conversation with the doctor was different from that of the doctor, and of a nurse who was also present. Where there are differing accounts of what was said or what happened in a particular situation, it can be difficult to prove what actually happened without independent evidence. In such cases, we normally base our findings on written records. In this case, the records noted it was a difficult conversation, and also noted a version of events contrary to what Mrs C told us had happened. We could not resolve this aspect of Mrs C’s complaint given the differing accounts, although we pointed out that this does not mean that we believed one account over another.

We looked at the board’s file on Mrs C’s complaint and at her medical records, and took independent advice from one of our medical advisers. Our adviser’s view, which we accepted, was that the care and treatment provided by the doctor was adequate in the circumstances, and consistent with usual practice and relevant guidelines.

In dealing with Mrs C’s complaint, the board looked at her medical records and obtained statements from the doctor and the nurse, and their response was consistent with this information. The board’s response acknowledged Mrs C's reported experience and apologised if problems with communication had made an already distressing situation worse. We were satisfied that, in the circumstances, the board’s response to Mrs C’s complaint was adequate. We did not uphold Mrs C’s complaints.

Summary

Miss A was unhappy with the advice she had received on the management of her hypothyroidism (where the thyroid gland produces too little thyroid hormone) with regards to conception and pregnancy. Mrs C, who complained on behalf of Miss A, added that Miss A had complained that she was never offered a face-to-face appointment with a GP at the medical practice and that she had been added to the thyroid follow up register without her knowledge.

We took independent medical advice from our GP adviser. We found that the practice were reasonable in adding Miss A's name to the thyroid follow up register as this is a way to ensure that the patient has annual blood tests to manage the condition. In addition, the practice had responded by apologising and said that this was simply an administrative tool and they had not anticipated it causing any concern. Our adviser told us that there are no guidelines dictating any treatment prior to pregnancy with regards to hypothyroidism, only about actions that should be taken after the woman becomes pregnant. In addition, we found that, given the nature of the consultations, it was reasonable to offer phone appointments. We found that the practice had given a reasonable standard of care.

Summary

Mr C complained that the university did not acknowledge that feedback on his thesis contained factual errors. We explained to Mr C that we could not investigate complaints relating to the quality of his academic work, or the quality of the academic input by members of university staff.

We found that, in dealing with Mr C's academic appeal, the university took account of the errors in the feedback. The university's appeals procedure said they had to tell a student the decision on the appeal within ten working days. However, it did not say they had to give a detailed account of how they considered the appeal and why they either accepted or rejected every individual point raised in the appeal. In Mr C's case, the university told him their decision on his appeal within the required ten working days. In doing so, the university explained why they concluded there were no grounds for Mr C's appeal, and that disagreement with academic judgement was not a valid ground for appeal. We were satisfied with how the university dealt with Mr C's appeal and, therefore, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that some of his property went missing when he was moved from one prison to another. Mr C disagreed with the outcome of his property claim. He said it was unreasonable for the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) to say that he was responsible for the property when he was not present when it was packed. We found that the SPS had followed the correct procedures in dealing with Mr C's property. When Mr C entered prison the property was recorded on a property card and was signed into his use. When Mr C was being moved to another prison two officers packed his property and recorded it on the appropriate form. Mr C was not present because he had not adhered to prison rules and was in segregation. As there was no procedural failing on the part of the SPS we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the prison's decision not to allow him to have his hi-fi system in use. He was unhappy as he had been allowed to use this in his previous prison. The prison explained to him that they do not permit the use of systems with detachable speakers.

We asked the prison about this and they provided us a copy of their policy which supported their decision. They noted that there was not yet a national policy for permissible electrical items and it was down to the discretion of prison governors to set a local policy for each prison.

As the prison's decision was in line with their local policy, we did not uphold the complaint. However, we acknowledged the current potential for inconsistencies across the prison estate and noted that we are aware this was already being looked at, with a view to setting a standardised national policy.

Summary

Mr C complained that the prison failed to review his supervision level appropriately. He said that when he was recalled to prison for a driving offence, he should have been assigned low supervision. He also questioned why the decision of residential staff to assign him low supervision at his review six months later was overruled by a senior manager who decided Mr C should remain at medium supervision level.

We reviewed Mr C's supervision level review forms and noted that, when he arrived back in prison, he was assigned high supervision level in line with prison rules which confirm that all prisoners, on reception, must be assigned this. An immediate review took place and Mr C's supervision was reduced to medium. There was no evidence to support his claim that he should have been assigned low supervision because he was recalled for a driving offence. The evidence confirmed that because he had a number of poor behavioural reports over the years whilst in prison, medium supervision was considered to be the appropriate level.

In Mr C's review six months after he was recalled to prison, the information confirmed that residential staff had indicated that he could be assigned low supervision. However, when the form was passed to the review board, they did not agree and said that Mr C's supervision level should be maintained at medium because he had recently received poor reports. We were satisfied the prison's handling of Mr C's reviews were appropriate and we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that he cannot attend Friday prayers in prison. The prison explained to Mr C that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s Islamic chaplaincy adviser had advised that prisons did not need to hold prayers on Fridays and that the same applied to other religions because they did not follow traditional service days.

We found that the prison rules say that every prisoner is entitled to observe the requirements and engage in the practices of their religion or belief. They also say prisoners are entitled to attend religious services or meetings arranged by members of the chaplaincy team. In addition, prison governors are required to tell prisoners what facilities or arrangements are in place for the purpose of practising their religion.

The SPS told us that their Islamic chaplaincy adviser confirmed that providing prayers on a day of the week which is suitable to the prison was appropriate. The adviser confirmed there was no requirement to provide prayers on Fridays, and that whilst in prison, whenever prayers take place they are considered as a benefit. The SPS confirmed that, for example, in the prison Mr C was located, Muslim prayers were held on Mondays and Roman Catholic Mass was held on Mondays for some prisoners, and Wednesdays for others. In light of this information, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.