Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained about the care and treatment that his late mother (Mrs A) had when she was admitted to Seafield Hospital. He said he was concerned about her breathing, and, when he did not feel reassured by nursing staff that her condition was unchanged, he asked that a doctor be called. When the doctor arrived, he examined Mrs A, and concluded that no further action was needed.

Having considered the relevant medical records, we accepted independent advice from one of our medical advisers that Mrs A's care and treatment was of a reasonable standard. The adviser said that the doctor had noted that Mrs A was breathing at a relatively normal rate, there were normal levels of oxygen in her blood, and he did not hear anything abnormal in her chest. We decided that the actions of the medical staff were appropriate as we found no evidence that further treatment or assessment were needed.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that there was a delay in getting dental care and treatment, and that when he did get care and treatment it was inadequate.

We got Mr C's clinical records from the board, and took independent advice from our dental adviser. Mr C was seen often by a dentist and a dental hygienist, and we found no evidence of unreasonable delay. The records showed that Mr C's dental treatment was reasonable, and he had declined treatment that might have helped deal with an abscess.

Summary

Mrs C complained that when her medical practice increased the dosage of her medication, it had side effects on both her heart rate and blood pressure. The practice said that they had acted in line with the appropriate guidelines when doing so. Mrs C remained unhappy and brought her complaint to us.

As part of our investigation we took independent advice from one of our medical advisers, who is a GP. He considered Mrs C's medical records and confirmed that the practice had decided to increase the dosage because of blood test results, and that the increased dosage was in keeping with standard practice in most GP surgeries. He also said that the internal systems the practice had in place to review Mrs C's medication in future were in line with good practice. As such, although we recognised that the change in dosage had affected Mrs C, we found no evidence to suggest that the practice acted unreasonably in prescribing this.

Summary

Miss C, who is an independent advocate, complained to us on behalf of her client (Miss A). Miss A had previously had input from the board's speech and language therapy (SaLT) and learning disabilities teams, and was looking for further input from them. The board, however, did not provide this. They said that the SaLT team could not identify a clinical risk to Miss A that would benefit from further intervention, and that the learning disabilities team had identified behavioural family therapy as being appropriate, which was begun. Miss C complained about these decisions.

The board investigated the complaints but remained of the view that their decisions had been reasonable. Miss C then raised her complaints with us.

We obtained independent advice from one of our medical advisers, who is an experienced mental health professional. He read Miss A's relevant records and considered the situation carefully. He explained that the use of both services has a particular purpose, and that the board had to take this into account. He agreed that the way the decisions were taken was correct, and that the board's decision not to offer further direct engagement was reasonable. We accepted his advice and did not uphold Miss C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that he had raised concerns with the board about the service provided by his local community pharmacy, and that he was dissatisfied with their response. We did not, however, uphold his complaint as we found that the board treated Mr C's concerns seriously. They spent a considerable amount of time trying to resolve them and sent him comprehensive responses, after seeking advice from appropriate sources both internally and externally.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment she received for her back condition at a clinic at Ayrshire Central Hospital. She said that their treatment of her painful condition was unreasonable, and was unhappy that she was referred to a specialist hip orthopaedic consultant whom she thought did not specialise in the right area for her condition.

We obtained independent advice on this case from two of our medical advisers - a physiotherapist with a specialist interest in spinal conditions and an orthopaedic surgeon with specialist interest in lumbar spine problems. Our physiotherapy adviser explained that the main source of Mrs C's pain was not clear, and that the treatment offered and the clinical pathway followed was reasonable in these circumstances. He said that the guidelines the clinic used were in line with clinical practice and national guidelines. Mrs C was clearly in considerable pain for many months and we fully acknowledged that any delay in receiving treatment would have been very distressing and debilitating for her. However, based on the advice received, we were satisfied that the clinic's care and treatment was reasonable and in line with national standards.

Our orthopaedic adviser explained that Mrs C's pain symptoms were not typical of the type of nerve root problems that were identified on an MRI scan she had (a scan used to diagnose health conditions that affect organs, tissue and bone) but were more typical of hip pain. He, therefore, thought that the initial referral to the hip consultant was appropriate. He said that Mrs C did not have any red flag symptoms (symptoms that would have suggested a very serious underlying cause) and so an MRI referral was, correctly, not considered appropriate. He concluded that the nerve damage identified on the scan was not of a type that should have led to a change in her referral pathway and that it was appropriate for her to continue to see the hip consultant in the first instance. Based on the advice received, we concluded that the board's actions in making and maintaining Mrs C's initial referral to the consultant were appropriate.

Summary

Miss C, who was a student, complained that the university provided her with inadequate feedback on a resit assessment, and that their response to her complaint was inadequate.

We considered Miss C's letters, the university's file on her complaint, and relevant documents such as the course handbook. We found that the university had explained to Miss C why she failed the resit assessment and where information could be found in relevant guidelines. We also found that their investigation into her complaint was appropriate in the circumstances, and that it was adequately reflected in their letter to her.

Summary

Ms C, who was a student, asked for a training placement near her home. She explained that she needed this on the grounds of mitigating circumstances, as she had to care for a family member. The university declined her request and placed her in another location. Ms C complained to us that the university unreasonably failed to adhere to their mitigating circumstances criteria in dealing with her request.

We looked at information from Ms C and the university. The university information included their policy for allocating student placements and taking into account mitigating circumstances. It was not, however, for us to say whether Ms C's mitigating circumstances were valid, which was a decision for the university. Our role was to look at whether they dealt with Ms C's mitigating circumstances claim in line with their policy and procedures.

The university explained how the relevant committee considered Ms C's claim, and the evidence showed they did so with empathy. The university also explained why the committee decided that the circumstances Ms C detailed, and the supporting evidence she provided to them, did not meet their mitigating circumstances criteria. We found that they had considered the placement request and Miss C's mitigating circumstances claim in line with their allocation policy.

Summary

Mr C, who was studying for a PhD (an advanced degree course), began his studies in 2006 and after some problems with his research was told by the university that his progress was unsatisfactory. He appealed that decision in 2009 and the university decided to allow him to continue his studies under certain conditions. These included weekly supervisory meetings, the production of a detailed plan for his PhD submission and quarterly reviews with his supervisors and an independent person. At a review meeting in July 2011 Mr C was again told that his progress was unsatisfactory. He lodged an appeal in September 2011 and following decisions by both a college appeals committee and a senate appeals committee his appeal was dismissed in November 2012.

Mr C then complained to us. Our investigation focused only on the appeals process from July 2011. This was because the earlier process was out of time for us to investigate, and the academic decisions were outwith our jurisdiction.

Mr C complained that the university's examination of his appeal in 2012 was unreasonable, and that they failed to deal with his appeal within the timescales set by their own procedures. Our investigation found, however, that the university had considered all the relevant evidence provided, including information provided by Mr C about his health and adverse personal circumstances. We also found that, although the appeals process was not completed within the timescales set within the university's procedures, there were no unavoidable delays and where delays occurred, Mr C was kept informed.

Summary

Miss C complained to us on behalf of a student (Miss A) who had been found guilty of collusion at an academic misconduct hearing. Miss A had appealed on the grounds that the university had not followed procedures in conducting the hearing. They had also terminated Miss A's enrolment as this was the second time a misconduct charge had been proven, which was their automatic penalty for this. Miss A said this penalty was unfair. When Miss A appealed, the university determined there were no grounds to consider the appeal. Miss C complained to us that the university did not follow their procedures in dealing with the misconduct complaint and that they unreasonably dismissed Miss A's appeal.

We looked in detail at the way in which the university considered the misconduct allegation and asked for more information about what happened, and about the procedures involved. Our investigation found that the university had followed their policy and procedures in dealing with the alleged misconduct and the subsequent appeal. Although there were some minor issues about the accuracy of the record of the misconduct hearing, these did not materially affect how the university handled it. We noted that they had already taken steps to address these, so we made no recommendations.