Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Ms C complained to us on behalf of her relative (Ms A) in relation to the care and treatment of Ms A's late baby (Baby A). Baby A was born at University Hospital Crosshouse following a normal delivery, and was assessed at birth to be fit and well. Around three hours after birth, the baby's temperature was taken using an adult thermometer, as no paediatric thermometer could be found. As the temperature was found to be low, Baby A was placed under an overhead heater, and was monitored carefully. After half an hour a paediatric thermometer was used to take Baby A's temperature, which had returned to normal levels. A paediatrician reviewed Baby A an hour later, and assessed Baby A as fit for transfer to the maternity ward. Following another 20 hours of monitoring, mother and baby were assessed as fit for discharge.

Two weeks later, Baby A took severely ill and was taken to A&E. Baby A was treated by a team from the intensive care team from the nearest children's hospital, and was immediately transferred there. Baby A died four days later, from late onset Group B streptococcal septicaemia (a bacterial infection of the blood), which developed into meningitis (an infection of the lining of the brain).

Our adviser found that the monitoring of Baby A's temperature in the first 24 hours of life was appropriate. He also noted that, while one temperature reading was not taken appropriately, this was rectified soon after, and subsequent readings were appropriately timed and were taken with the right equipment. The adviser considered the standard of care to be good, and did not raise any concerns about the management of Baby A's temperature. He also clarified that concerns about Baby A's temperature in the first day of life did not have any impact on the subsequent infection. On the basis of this advice, and as the board met with the requirements of the guidance on the management of infection in new-born babies, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the university had failed to allow sufficient time for his submission to be marked in order that he could obtain a qualification. He told us that if he had obtained the qualification by a specific date, he would have received an increase in his salary. Mr C had missed the original deadline for submitting the work. The deadline was then extended and a further extension was subsequently agreed with Mr C. He paid the required fee and submitted the work on the date that had been agreed, which was just under six weeks before the date he needed to obtain the qualification in order to obtain the salary increase.

The university's programme guide for the course stated that students should expect to receive feedback within six weeks of the date the work is submitted. In Mr C's case, we found no evidence that he was told that he would receive the feedback within a shorter time period. The work was in fact marked and returned to Mr C with feedback just over three weeks after he submitted it. This left just over two weeks for Mr C to resubmit the work in order to obtain the qualification. However, the university told us that his submission had fallen far short of what was needed in order to pass, as could be seen by the extensive feedback provided, and it would have taken him several months to do the work required to obtain the qualification. They pointed out that, if the submission had been a marginal fail, they would have supported him if he had wished to make a resubmission and to have that result approved in time. They also said that they could not reasonably have known the extent of the corrections required, or how long it would take to bring the submission to the required standard, before Mr C submitted it.

We found that there were no unreasonable delays or failings by the university that left Mr C with insufficient time to achieve the qualification and the salary increase. He had been aware of the tight timescale, and it was his choice to submit the work at that time and pay the required fee. We were satisfied that the reason that he was unable to resubmit the work at the required standard within the deadline was because of the revisions that were required and not because of delays by the university. In view of this, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained that the university did not offer her a further opportunity to submit her final assignment, and that their handling of her academic appeal was inadequate.

During our investigation, we looked at university policies and regulations, and at the records of Miss C's appeal. We found that regulations allowed academic staff flexibility in setting work for re-assessment, both in terms of the form the assessment would take, and the number of attempts allowed. The evidence showed that, in dealing with Miss C's attempts at the assignment, academic staff acted in line with policy and regulations.

Miss C told us that the handling of her first stage appeal was biased, because a particular member of academic staff was involved and that her second stage appeal was not even considered. We found that the member of staff was not involved in considering the first appeal or making a decision on it, and we found no evidence of bias in consideration of that appeal. We also found that the second stage appeal was considered in line with the academic appeals procedure. In addition, Miss C told us that the university did not take account of her medical and personal circumstances, and she was not given enough time to submit her appeal. We found that, where relevant, the university did consider Miss C's circumstances during the appeal, and that she was given sufficient time to submit it in terms of the timescales set out in the academic appeals procedure.

Summary

Mr C complained that he was not given a mattress or bedding on a particular evening after the prison placed him in segregation. He said that he had not self-harmed, displayed erratic behaviour or damaged property until after he was moved to another cell.

We did not find evidence to support comments by a prison officer that Mr C damaged property immediately before being transferred to a segregation cell. Nevertheless, there was evidence suggesting he had self-harmed, and that staff had tried to allow him to remain in his usual cell. However, when staff tried to remove items from his cell for safety reasons Mr C made further suicidal comments, which resulted in him being transferred to a safer environment, in accordance with the suicide risk procedure.

There was evidence to show that attempts were made to place him under observation in two segregation cells. However, he damaged one of the cells by removing the electrical sockets, and attempted to do similar damage to the other one. This resulted in him being transferred to a special cell with no sockets. He was noted to be non-compliant with staff and a decision was taken not to give him bedding or open the cell door because of his unpredictable behaviour and past history. The prison have a duty to ensure that a prisoner is provided with sufficient bedding for warmth and health. However, they also have discretion to remove items from a cell as they see fit. Whilst it was not ideal that Mr C had no bedding, the room was heated and he had access to a sleeping plinth. We found no evidence to show that the prison failed to follow their procedures when managing Mr C under the suicide risk management strategy.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream had failed to re-assess the invoice his company received for water used, despite this clearly being in excess of normal usage. He said that there was no evident reason for the spike in consumption.

We found that Business Stream had taken all the actions they needed to investigate Mr C's report of high water consumption. Whilst the reason had not been identified, we found that Business Stream had reassured themselves that it was not due to something which they had a responsibility to attend to. They explained that as neither they nor Mr C's plumber had found a leak or reason for the high water consumption, it appeared to be related to internal issues, such as a cistern constantly flowing, or taps being left running. Although we did not uphold Mr C's complaint, Business Stream agreed that they would seek further reassurances by asking Scottish Water to check further back on whether there might have been any action on the water network which might have caused the increased reading in the meter.

Summary

Mr C complained to the prison because he considered that staff had failed to follow his care plan appropriately. He then complained to us that the prison's investigation of his complaint was inadequate even though they upheld it and agreed to take forward changes. In particular, Mr C did not consider that some of what they had said about his behaviour was accurate and he felt they did not respond fully to the issues he raised.

We obtained copies of the evidence that the prison looked at as part of their investigation of Mr C's complaint. We identified that there was information to support the prison's version of events in relation to Mr C's behaviour even though he disagreed. However, it was clear that the prison failed to acknowledge, or respond to, all of the issues Mr C raised but we were satisfied that the overall outcome of the complaint was appropriate. Therefore, we concluded that the prison's investigation was adequate and we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that his prison did not provide a meal to mark a religious holiday. We noted that there was no requirement on the prison to provide such a meal. However, our investigation indicated that they did provide a meal which was better than usual meals and which was intended to mark the religious holiday. The prison said they had also taken the opportunity to broaden the understanding of other prisoners who were not observing the holiday by making the menu available to all prisoners and by including an explanation on the menu. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained because he said the prison was paying him an unfair wage. He also said they failed to handle his complaint appropriately.

Our investigation highlighted that there were prisoners employed in the same work party working the same hours as Mr C but receiving a higher wage than him. A new work timetable was introduced by the prison prior to Mr C's arrival and because of that, the hours those prisoners previously worked were reduced. The SPS national wage earning policy says that prisoners should not be penalised for wage earning if work or activity is reduced due to operational reasons. As a result, the prison continued to pay those prisoners the wage they received prior to their hours being reduced. In Mr C's case, he began work after the new timetable was brought in. As he was being paid in line with the policy in place at the time we, therefore, did not uphold his complaint. We also did not uphold Mr C's complaint about the way the prison handled his complaint to them.

Summary

Mr C complained that his prison failed to deal appropriately with his requests to be transferred to a different prison.

The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) are entitled to decide how best to manage the prison population. Therefore, it is up to them to decide whether or not to grant transfer requests, taking into account all relevant information. We cannot question these decisions unless there is evidence that they have not been taken properly. Neither can we have a prisoner placed in a particular prison. Our role is to consider whether the SPS act in line with relevant processes or procedures.

We looked at information provided by Mr C and the SPS, and we found that although it took a number of months for Mr C to be transferred, this was reasonable in the circumstances. It was clear that SPS staff made reasonable efforts to have Mr C transferred to an appropriate prison; however, in doing so, they had to take into account several factors about the receiving prison's population, in addition to Mr C's own situation. We were satisfied that the SPS dealt with Mr C's transfer requests appropriately and, therefore, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the prison he was in failed to make adequate arrangements for the provision of halal food. He said that he wanted the imam for the prison to taste random halal meals, as he considered that the halal goods brought into the prison were not halal by the time they reached prisoners' plates.

The prison rules say that the prison governor must taste and check samples of the food. They must also ensure that every prisoner is provided with food that takes into account, as far as practical, the prisoner's age, health and religious, cultural, dietary or other requirements. However, there is no requirement for the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) to arrange for an imam to taste halal food. During our investigation, the prison told us that halal food is prepared separately, and that utensils are sterilised before use to prevent cross-contamination. They said that, once the meat is prepared, it is placed into individual containers and is then refrigerated or frozen and the containers stored in separate sections. They also sent us halal certificates from their meat suppliers.

Mr C also wanted his food to be served by a Muslim prisoner. Ideally, halal food would be served by a practising Muslim and we could understand Mr C's concerns that, in the prison, it was not. However, there was no requirement for the SPS to arrange this and the decision on who served halal food in the prison was one for them to make, which we could not question in the absence of any evidence of maladministration in the taking of that decision.

We found that the SPS had made reasonable arrangements to provide halal food in the prison, and did not uphold Mr C's complaint.