Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Following previous complaints, Mrs C had continued to have concerns about how her child's primary school had dealt with new disciplinary matters and incidents of bullying. When she complained to the council, she said they had again not dealt with her complaints adequately, not ensured an impartial investigation, and not responded appropriately to her communications.

Our investigation found that the complaints had been appropriately investigated under the council's two-stage complaints handling procedure, with the school's head teacher initially responding to her complaints. When Mrs C remained dissatisfied, the council escalated her complaints to the next stage for which they had appointed an independent person, a retired schools inspector, to conduct the investigation. Mrs C had expressed concern that as the independent person had previously worked with the head teacher, they could not be impartial. We found no evidence, however, to suggest that the investigation was not conducted in an independent and impartial way.

Summary

Miss C complained to the housing association about their responses to her requests for repairs. The association investigated her complaints and advised her of their conclusions. In some cases they said their responses had been reasonable and in others they found their actions could have been quicker or more effective, and they apologised to Miss C where they felt necessary.

Miss C was dissatisfied with the association's response and complained to us. We examined the available evidence and found that, though there were areas where the responses could have been better, overall they had been reasonable.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy that the association failed to provide him with sufficient information when he signed his tenancy agreement. They disagreed and said that they did provide him with enough information.

We explained to Mr C that the association were not required to go through his tenancy agreement, word for word, at the signing. Our investigation considered what information Mr C was given and whether this was in line with the relevant procedures. We found that the allocation policy and sign-up procedure applied to Mr C's situation and that both had been followed accurately. This meant that the association had done as they should have and had provided sufficient information, so we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that her daughter (Ms A) had been complaining for a number of years about the dampness affecting her flat but the association had not attended to the problem properly. She also complained that, unlike other tenants, Ms A's front door was not replaced.

We found that Ms A had complained to the association about water penetration during periods of bad weather in the winter. Necessary work was carried out within a month. After an incident in January 2013, the association took the view that it would probably be appropriate to remove the chimney head. They wrote to other owners in the building asking them for permission to do this and to confirm that they would contribute to the cost. The association received no replies and as the work was not deemed to be an emergency, they could not go ahead without permission from the other owners. In January 2014, there was another leak and this time the association decided that the repairs could be considered an emergency. They removed the chimney head at their own cost. Meanwhile, Ms A had complained that her front door lock was faulty and it was repaired. Although Mrs C said that other tenants had had their front doors replaced, Ms A's door had been made lock fast and there was no evidence to show that was not serviceable.

Summary

Miss C suffers from a medical condition and lives in an association property served by electric storage heaters. She informed the association that these were not heating her home sufficiently and requested that gas central heating be installed. She said that gas central heating would relieve some of her medical symptoms. The association ensured that the heating system was working correctly and replaced two faulty heaters. They then said that if a medically qualified person recommended gas central heating for Miss C then they would be able to apply for a grant to cover the cost it. The association said that otherwise they had no plans to update the heating in her building for another few years.

Miss C complained that it was unreasonable of the association not to install gas central heating and that they had given her conflicting advice. During our investigation we found that the association had the discretion to decide when and how to upgrade the heating systems. They had fulfilled their responsibilities by ensuring the current heating system was functional and, therefore, we did not uphold this complaint. We also did not uphold Miss C's complaint that she had been given conflicting advice, as we found that the association had suggested reasonable options and investigated possible options presented to them by Miss C.

Summary

Ms C complained about the care and treatment she received from her medical practice. She was unhappy they had not given her a clear diagnosis for her symptoms over an extended period of time, and felt they had delayed in telling her about the diagnoses they actually had made in this time.

As part of our investigation we took independent advice from one of our medical advisers, an experienced GP, who reviewed Ms C's medical records. He said the paperwork indicated that the practice had tried to address her concerns and their steps had been reasonable. Although he acknowledged they may not have explained Ms C's symptoms to her satisfaction, the evidence did not indicate they acted unreasonably. In addition, as most diagnoses were actually made by hospital doctors following referrals by the practice, our adviser explained that it would mainly have been for the hospital doctors to tell Ms C about her diagnoses. Our adviser said the records indicated that the practice had been reasonable in communicating any diagnoses they had actually made to Ms C.

Our role was to make a decision about the reasonableness of Ms C's care and treatment based on the available evidence. Some conditions are particularly difficult to diagnose and treat, and the absence of a clear diagnosis would not necessarily mean that the practice had acted unreasonably. Although we recognised how significant this matter was for Ms C, we did not uphold her complaints as we received clear advice that her care and treatment was of a reasonable standard.

Summary

Ms C complained that the board failed to diagnose and treat her in 2013, as well as failing to inform her about the steps they had taken during this time.

As part of our investigation we obtained independent advice from one of our medical advisers, who is an experienced doctor. He reviewed Ms C's medical records and explained that they indicated that throughout 2013 the board had made reasonable efforts to reach a diagnosis that explained Ms C's symptoms. He also said that the records indicated that the board had explained their findings to Ms C and that any diagnosis made – or not made – was reasonably communicated to her.

Although we recognised how strongly Ms C felt about this, our role was to consider whether the evidence indicated that her care and treatment fell below a reasonable standard. For example, although the board had not provided Ms C with a clear diagnosis this did not necessarily mean that they acted unreasonably. In light of the medical advice we received, we did not uphold her complaints as the evidence did not indicate that the board failed to diagnose and treat Ms C or to inform her about the steps they had taken.

Summary

Mr C broke his tibia (shin bone) while playing football and was admitted to Wishaw General Hospital. His injury was assessed and it was decided to move the bone into place before setting it with a full plaster cast. Mr C attended regularly at an out-patient clinic so that the healing process could be monitored. Over the following months the style of Mr C's cast was changed and he was given exercises to do. Mr C also attended at A&E on a number of occasions due to discomfort from his casts. Although there had been some signs of healing in the weeks following the injury, this did not progress and it was decided that surgery was necessary to fix the fracture using a nail.

Mr C complained that his fracture should have been nailed immediately after the accident. After taking independent advice on this case from one of our medical advisers, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Our adviser said that the treatment that Mr C had received was reasonable in the circumstances and fell within the range of normal practice for the management of this type of fracture. The adviser considered that the casts and exercises that Mr C had been given were appropriate for the management of his injury.

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf of her late mother (Mrs A) that the board did not adequately assess and monitor Mrs A's nutritional needs following her emergency admission to Hairmyres Hospital. From what Mrs C told us, it was clear that this had been an upsetting experience for her and her family.

We looked at information provided by Mrs C and the board, and we took independent advice from one of our medical advisers. We found that the board's assessment and monitoring of Mrs A's nutritional needs was adequate. Specifically, we found that the board carried out the relevant assessments (including nutritional assessments), that she was seen regularly and that the nursing assessment and monitoring was clear and comprehensive. We also found that Mrs A was given an immediate referral to the dietician. We were satisfied that Mrs A was able to give consent and that her wishes were respected in that a nasogastric tube (a tube that is passed through the nose into the stomach) was not inserted until she gave consent. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C was unhappy with the care and treatment provided to her late mother (Mrs A) when she was admitted to Glasgow Royal Infirmary to repair her broken hip. She complained about failure to manage Mrs A's diabetes, poor wound management, and failure to take appropriate action when Mrs A's condition deteriorated. Mrs A had fallen at home, and had surgery to repair her hip the following day. She developed an infection and had two more surgical procedures, including removal of a hip implant that had been inserted during the first operation. Her condition deteriorated, however, and just over a month after going into hospital she was admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) where she died three days later.

Our investigation included taking independent advice from two of our medical advisers, a consultant orthopaedic surgeon and a consultant in critical care. We found that Mrs A's condition had been appropriately monitored and managed with specialist advice being taken from the diabetic and ICU teams when necessary. Mrs A's diabetes was known to be unstable before she went into hospital and it was difficult to control while she was there. The advisers said that this would have made her prone to infection, and that in turn, infection could have made her diabetes more difficult to control. They were satisfied that appropriate action was taken to monitor and address this, including asking the diabetes specialist nurse and a specialist registrar to review Mrs A several times.

The advisers were satisfied that the care and treatment of Mrs A's wound infection was reasonable. There were no clear indications of infection until almost two weeks after the operation and until then appropriate action was taken to investigate and address the symptoms that Mrs A was displaying. When her condition deteriorated further, the advisers said that Mrs A was appropriately reviewed by the ICU team and then transferred to the ICU. Our investigation found that, overall, the care and treatment provided to Mrs A was reasonable, appropriate, timely and in line with standard practice and national guidance.