Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that his former medical practice did not keep correct medical records and failed to give him the correct care and treatment. He also complained that the practice dealt inappropriately with urine samples presented for testing.

We obtained independent advice on the complaint from one of our medical advisers, who is a GP, and considered all the relevant information, including Mr C's medical records and the complaints correspondence. Our investigation found no evidence to suggest that the practice had failed to keep correct records and the records showed that Mr C had been appropriately treated for his symptoms. We also found that five urine samples were taken, all of which were presented for results which were also recorded.

Summary

Mr C complained that he was prescribed medication that caused an unpleasant side effect. He said he had not been fully informed of the possibility of experiencing this side effect.

We took independent advice from one of our medical advisers, who said that GPs are only required to mention the most common side effects. The adviser said that the patient information leaflet provided with the medication details all the other possible side effects and advises patients to report to their GP immediately if they experience any of these. The adviser also said that it was not certain that the medication Mr C complained about was what was causing the side effect. In light of the advice received we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C was issued with a fine for driving in a bus lane. He emailed the council appealing this, but did not receive a response. The council then wrote to him, telling him that a surcharge had been applied as the fine had not been paid. As the council did not hear from Mr C, they then passed the matter to sheriff officers to recover the unpaid charges. The sheriff officers wrote to Mr C warning that if he did not pay, they would take action to recover the amount through arrestment of earnings (where Mr C's employer would be instructed to deduct the money owed to the council directly from Mr C's wages), which would incur further charges. Three months later, the charges remained unpaid, and the sheriff officers carried out enforcement action. Mr C then contacted the council to complain that his appeal had not been dealt with. The council investigated this and said that they had no record of having received his email. However, they looked into the concerns he had raised, and advised him that there were no problems identified with when he was recorded in the bus lane. Mr C accepted this but remained unhappy that he had to pay increased charges because they did not receive his appeal.

We were satisfied that the council reviewed Mr C's email evidence and responded to his appeal. They also checked for evidence of a system failure and concluded that the email did not reach them for unknown reasons. In terms of Mr C's concerns that he was disadvantaged in terms of the additional charges applied, we found that there was a missed opportunity in him checking matters related to his appeal with the council when he received their further correspondence saying that the fine had been increased due to non-payment, and when the sheriff officers wrote to him about the unpaid fine. It was likely that the missing appeal would have been identified and the increased charges might have been avoided had Mr C contacted the council at these times.

In view of this, we did not consider that the council acted unreasonably nor did we identify any failing in the council's appeal process.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy at the time the council took to deal with a complaint he had made about dry rot in his neighbour's property, which had affected his property. He said that it took almost a year for a serious environmental health issue to be addressed.

We found that although the relevant legislation does not require councils to serve a work notice in these circumstances, the council intervened to help Mr C resolve the situation and did serve a notice. The legislation also states that if the owner does not comply with the notice within the time set out for it, the local authority can carry out the work itself and reclaim the cost from the owner. When the owner failed to comply with the notice, the council decided to carry out the work themselves and had explained to Mr C the difficulties they had encountered in trying to gain access to the property as well as later having to deal with a bank who, by then, owned the property. In total, the time between the work notice being issued and the specialist work starting on the property was seven months. In the circumstances we found this to be reasonable and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council delayed in notifying him of a rodent problem affecting his property. He also said that they did not give him enough notice before warning him that they might take legal action against him about pest control treatment and that they did not reasonably investigate his complaints.

We found evidence that the council had told Mr C about the rodent problem within a reasonable timescale. Furthermore, we considered that their email warning him about possible legal action was reasonable, given that Mr C had told them he could not afford the cost of the treatment and did not know how to proceed. In terms of the handling of Mr C's complaint, we examined a significant amount of correspondence. We concluded that the council provided reasonable responses along with evidence to support their conclusions, and that this was provided within appropriate timescales.

Summary

Ms C complained to us that when she attended A&E at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh with sciatica (back and leg pain caused by irritation or compression of the sciatic nerve) she was not provided with appropriate care and treatment and had to take a taxi home at her own expense.

We took independent advice from one of our medical advisers, who looked at Ms C's medical records. We found evidence that Ms C had been properly assessed and that she was given pain relief, with appropriate advice to seek further medical assistance should her condition deteriorate. Our adviser said that there was no clinical reason to admit Ms C to hospital at that time. There was nothing showing that Ms C had raised concerns with staff about getting home from hospital and we took the view that the board's response about being unable to refund her taxi fare was reasonable.

Summary

Mrs C, who is an advice worker, complained to us on behalf of her client (Mrs A), about the care and treatment of Mrs A's late husband (Mr A). A GP from the medical practice had examined Mr A earlier in the day and prescribed antibiotic tablets and a throat spray. Mrs C complained that the GP then failed to reattend Mr and Mrs A's home to visit Mr A when he began having breathing difficulties. Mr A died later that day.

We took independent advice on this case from one of our medical advisers. Our adviser explained that the GP recorded a thorough history and examination in keeping with an upper respiratory infection. She said that the GP examined Mr A's chest and noted that it was clear. With regards to Mrs A's specific concern about the GP's failure to reattend, the adviser reviewed the notes relating to a phone call and was satisfied that it did not contain anything to suggest an increasing severity of Mr A's condition. Based on the advice received, we were satisfied that the GP's care and treatment was reasonable.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment provided to her late husband (Mr C) following his diagnosis and treatment for cancer in 2010. Mr C was diagnosed with cancer of the oesophagus (gullet), and in November 2010 had chemotherapy (treatment with toxic drugs to kill or reduce cancer cells) and surgery. He attended regular follow-up appointments, firstly with the surgeon who treated him, and then with a nurse specialist from the surgeon's team. During these appointments Mr C reported that he was suffering nausea and 'gagging' when eating and that although he had a reduced appetite, he was forcing himself to eat to try to regain his health. In the late summer of 2012 he became increasingly unwell and his GP referred him back to the surgeon.

The surgeon reviewed Mr C and ordered a computerised tomography scan (CT scan - which uses a computer to produce an image of the body), which took place in early October. As Mr A continued to deteriorate, he was admitted to Raigmore Hospital a few days later. When the scan was reviewed Mr C was diagnosed with a recurrence of his cancer, which was inoperable. He died later that month after being transferred to a hospice.

During our investigation we took independent advice from a medical adviser who is a cancer specialist with experience of oesophageal cancers. Mrs C told us that she was concerned that no CT scan was carried out after surgery to confirm that all the cancer had been removed, and that regular CT scanning was not part of the follow-up programme. The adviser said that there is no scan or test that can definitely say that all cancer has been removed and, similarly, national guidance on the management of oesophageal cancers did not recommend regular CT scanning as no benefit has been found in this. The board's local follow-up protocol mirrored that guidance. The adviser also said that Mr C's ongoing symptoms were common in patients who have had oesophageal cancers, and can take a year or more to settle down. The adviser noted that the symptoms were recorded and monitored and that relevant advice, for example from a dietician, had been given. We were satisfied that Mr C was appropriately followed up and that, when he became unwell, the board took appropriate and timely action to investigate this.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C were unhappy with the way the council dealt with their antisocial behaviour complaint. They complained that the council failed to force the landlord of a neighbouring property to repair and soundproof their premises. They also complained that the council failed to deal with the antisocial behaviour of the tenant and that the council's senior investigator threatened them. We told Mr and Mrs C that the first complaint was not ready for our office as it had not been through the council's complaints procedure and we felt that we could not reach a supportable conclusion on the third complaint.

Our investigation, therefore, considered only how the council handled the antisocial behaviour complaints. We looked at how Mr and Mrs C's complaints were recorded, what action the council took and whether they took into account the relevant policies and legislation. We found that the complaints were recorded on the appropriate database, that the council took account of the relevant internal procedure and the relevant legislation, and that they had made attempts over a prolonged period of time to resolve this in line with their process. As the council had done as they should have and had implemented their procedure reasonably, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that a prison health centre unreasonably stopped medication that he had previously been prescribed.

We took independent advice from one of our medical advisers, who reviewed Mr C's medical records. These noted that he said he was tired and having difficulty in waking up, and that the health centre told him that it was not sensible to continue taking the medication (a sleeping tablet). Our adviser said that this medication is only intended for short-term use. In light of the advice we received, we considered that the health centre doctor provided a reasonable standard of care and that the decision to stop Mr C's medication was appropriate in the circumstances.