Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

C complained that the council failed to provide kinship care allowance after they had moved into the area from England, despite them having custody of their grandchild through a Residence Order (a court order which determines where a child should live) from an English court. The council had refused on the basis that they considered the English council should be responsible for the cost of the allowance, unless and until the Residence Order was confirmed by a Scottish court. C was also concerned that the council had failed to provide appropriate support to them and their grandchild.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that, apart from a delay of a couple of months when C first applied for assistance, the council had acted appropriately, and that the order in question was not one that was transferrable between England and Scotland. As such, we did not uphold C's complaints.

Summary

C lived in a property managed by the association. C complained that the property's heating system was inadequate, resulting in high bills despite not heating rooms to an acceptable temperature. C also complained that the property was poorly insulated, suffered from damp, and had a shower that was dangerous to use.

Although the association sent engineers to the property to investigate C's complaints, C remained dissatisfied with the action taken and did not feel able to continue living in the property until the maintenance issues were resolved.

We found that the association responded to each of C's concerns reasonably. Engineers attended the property to investigate any maintenance issues raised, and repairs or upgrades were made where problems were identified. Whilst C remained dissatisfied with a number of amenities within the property, we were satisfied that the association had acted reasonably and appropriately informed C if they were unable to meet C's requests for upgraded facilities. We did not uphold C's complaints.

Summary

C, an advocate, submitted a complaint on behalf of B, parent of A. C complained that A and their family had not received sufficient, timely or ongoing support from the social work department of the partnership. In the year prior to the referral to the intensive family support service (IFSS), A exhibited behaviours which B considered should have qualified them for intensive intervention at that time, however, input from the IFSS was not agreed to until a year later. B considered that A's escalating behaviours could have been avoided if intensive support had been provided sooner. Having complained to the partnership, and being dissatisfied with their response, C brought the complaint to our office.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that it was reasonable that other supports were tried prior to A being referred to IFSS. We found that the response and involvement of specific agencies was reasonable, with regular and frequent contact and involvement in assisting A and the family to manage A's behaviour. While there were issues with record-keeping, we found that, overall, the support provided by the partnership in the period prior to referral to IFSS was reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C complained on behalf of A in relation to A's child (B). B, along with their siblings, were placed on the Child Protection Register (CPR, a confidential list of all children in the local area who have been identified as being at risk of significant harm).

B was taken to A&E with a broken arm. The medical staff felt the explanation provided by B's parents did not fit with the injury found. It was determined that the type of injury sustained by B was highly indicative of a non-accidental injury. A cause for concern was submitted to the partnership. The partnership took initial action to allow a relative to act as a protective factor and be present at all times to supervise any contact with the children and parents. The partnership then conducted a child protection investigation.

C raised concerns on behalf of A that the partnership stepped in unnecessarily, whilst refusing to consider further medical evidence and the partnership did not allow C or B's parents to have a voice at the meetings. They also felt that the partnership placed all the children on the CPR when this was not needed.

We took independent social work advice. We found that it was reasonable for the partnership to carry out a child protection investigation in the circumstances and that it was reasonable for all children to be placed on the CPR whilst an assessment of the overall situation was carried out. We found that the meetings held were conducted appropriately, although, there appeared to have been a mixed response to allowing one parent to contribute to the meetings (i.e. at times they were allowed to contribute and at times they were told their contributions were not appropriate – without being provided with an explanation why).

Summary

C attended a clinic a number of times where it was found that they had non-specific urethritis (inflammation of the tube that carries urine from the bladder to outside the body). On one occasion C was diagnosed with chlamydia (a common sexually transmitted disease). C was prescribed antibiotics to treat these conditions.

C raised concern that the partnership provided incorrect treatment. C told us that they were given multiple types of antibiotics and these had significant side effects. They were concerned that the antibiotics had impacted on their liver.

The partnership said that C was prescribed the correct antibiotics for their diagnoses. They noted that liver damage is a rare side effect of the antibiotics prescribed and blood results from the time period in question showed normal liver results and suggested that there was not severe liver damage following the antibiotics.

We took independent clinical advice from an adviser experienced in general practice, and an adviser experienced in hepatology and gastroenterology (a specialist in diagnosing and treatment disorders of the liver, stomach and intestines). We found that the treatments provided by the clinic were reasonable and that it was reasonable to treat C on the basis of the symptoms they presented with. We noted that the choice of antibiotics was reasonable, and that the partnership's position on liver damage (being a rare side effect) was reasonable.

As such, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C, a support and advocacy worker, complained to us on behalf of their client (A) about the care and treatment that the partnership provided to A. In particular, C complained that A was not given appropriate support during and after their transfer to adult mental health services.

We took independent advice from an adviser in mental health nursing. We found that A's transition to adult mental health services was reasonably planned and carried out. We also found that A was given reasonable care and treatment after their transfer to adult services. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C has been diagnosed with Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder (EUPD). C was admitted to a specialist mental health facility on two occasions. Whilst there, C was under the care of a consultant psychiatrist.

C complained to the board about various matters including the decisions to discharge C to care in the community, given C's EUPD diagnosis, and that the community mental health team (CMHT) were providing support only by telephone, rather than face-to-face contact, due to arrangements in place during the COVID-19 pandemic. In their response, the board explained that international evidence advised that patients with EUPD should be cared for in the community wherever possible and that the board had sought to offer C the most appropriate care when they encouraged C to leave the ward.

C was dissatisfied and raised their complaints with this office. We found that C's discharges were reasonable in terms of the planning undertaken, discussions held and arrangements made both in terms of C's diagnosis and the particular circumstances of the time. We also found that these decisions were in line with relevant guidance. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

C complained on behalf of their late spouse (A) about the treatment provided to them. A had a history of breast cancer and attended the practice with back pain. A was treated for simple back pain with some sciatic nerve irritation (nerve in the lower back area) and prescribed pain relief. A was later diagnosed with kidney failure caused from metastatic disease (secondary cancer) and died. C complained that the practice had failed to give proper consideration to A's history of cancer when assessing their back pain. C considered that an earlier diagnosis may have increased A's life expectancy as treatment could have been commenced earlier.

We took independent advice from a GP. We considered that A's symptoms had been reasonably assessed and that A's reoccurrence of cancer was not foreseeable any earlier than diagnosed. When A's presentation changed, appropriate steps were taken, with further investigations and referrals to hospital speciality care. As such, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

C attended hospital on a number of occasions for the removal of some teeth. At one consultation staff said C was aggressive and asked C to leave the department. C complained about the care and treatment provided to them and that the zero tolerance policy was applied unfairly to them. At a further consultation, C said they were told the hospital would not be able to provide further treatment for them.

We took independent advice from a dentist. We found that the care and treatment provided to C was appropriate and the record-keeping was of high quality. There was good evidence of staff spending time with C to explain their treatment options. We found that staff were entitled to ask C to leave when they perceived C's behaviour to be aggressive and threatening. We also noted that the board had reassured C that they could receive treatment at the hospital, but this would be reviewed if C behaved aggressively again in the future. We did not uphold C's complaints.

Summary

C complained about the psychiatric care and treatment provided to their spouse (A) by the board. C raised a number of issues which included the behaviour and attitude of a psychiatrist during a consultation with A, that the psychiatrist had remained involved in A's care against A's wishes, and that the psychiatrist had made a diagnosis of factitious disorder (serious mental disorder in which someone deceives others by appearing sick, by purposely getting sick or by self-injury), of which they had failed to notify A and the wider clinical team. C also complained about a clinical psychologist's involvement in A's care, specifically that they had prepared a report relating to A which contained a number of inaccurate statements.

We took independent advice from a consultant psychiatrist. We concluded that the board's management of A was appropriate, patient-centred and reasonable. In relation to the specific complaints C had raised, we found there was no evidence within the clinical records to support C's complaint about the attitude and behaviour of the psychiatrist during a consultation with A, although we accepted that some unhelpful language had been used for which the board had apologised.

We found that the records showed that A had generally been kept up to date with changes to their diagnosis, but that A had not been informed about the change in their diagnosis to factitious disorder. Whilst we considered A should have been informed, this was a relatively minor shortcoming in communication and had no detrimental effect on the overall care and treatment provided to A. We also found that the clinical psychologist's involvement in A's care had been appropriate and reasonable. For these reasons, on balance, we did not uphold C's complaint.