Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that there was an excessive delay in carrying out surgery on his knee. He said that this delay had breached the target waiting times. The board's position was that he had received his treatment within the target waiting times.

We noted that although there was a gap between Mr C's first consultant appointment and the second appointment (at which the decision to proceed with surgery was made) this was due to tests being carried out to ascertain if surgery was the appropriate option. There was also an issue about the complexity of the operation, which involved the removal and replacement of an existing knee replacement. Due to bone loss around the original prosthesis, a specific orthopaedic surgeon was required. The waiting time target could, therefore, only be applied once it was certain that Mr C would progress to surgery. Once this decision had been made, the operation was carried out in three weeks. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C's late mother (Mrs A) died in February 2012. Mr C complained that GPs at her medical practice failed to fully explore her symptoms and treat them appropriately. In particular, he was aggrieved that GPs accepted that his mother was suffering from terminal cancer and failed to take into account numerous occasions when she was prescribed antibiotics that produced an improvement in her condition. Mr C said said that this indicated that they failed to consider an alternative diagnosis.

To investigate the complaint, we obtained independent advice from one of our medical advisers. This confirmed that the GPs had taken appropriate action and, although a chest x-ray had indicated likely cancer, they had sought further confirmation that this was indeed the case. Confirmation was given by Mrs A's consultant, who also said that further tests were required to be absolutely sure. However, Mrs A had refused these. In the circumstances, we took the view that there was little more that the GPs could have done.

Summary

Mr C complained that a filling that had come loose from one of his front teeth had not been adequately restored, resulting in it having to be replaced several times. He also complained that during the attempts at restoration, healthy tooth tissue was drilled away.

Our investigation, which included taking independent advice from a dental adviser, found no evidence of inadequate treatment or that healthy tooth tissue had been drilled away. The adviser said that there are two approaches to this type of restoration, either of which would be considered reasonable. The adviser commented that the position of the tooth and the nature of the restoration would have made this treatment challenging and problematic. The dentist chose one of the two accepted methods and there was no evidence that the treatment provided was not of a reasonable standard.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment the board provided to her son (Master C) after he was admitted to hospital with a perforated appendix. His appendix was removed but he later had to be re-admitted to hospital because of infections, and twice had further unplanned abdominal surgery to release fluid. It was almost a month before he recovered. Mrs C complained that the board failed to diagnose and correct her son's problem; failed to identify a leakage from the stump of the appendix which she felt suggested that the initial surgery had failed; denied her request for the attendance of a surgeon; and failed to provide appropriate nursing care for her son when his condition deteriorated. She also complained that the board did not respond to her complaint appropriately, by failing to answer her question about her son being transferred to a major paediatric surgical centre for treatment.

We took independent advice on this case from one of our medical advisers, who is a paediatric surgeon, and a nursing adviser. Our medical adviser said that the protracted course of events was more likely to be related to the advanced stage of the appendicitis when Master C reached hospital, rather than the care he received there. He explained that the leak was unlikely to have been caused by the initial surgery, but more likely to be associated with the severity of the underlying diagnosis. He was of the view that the board did not unreasonably deny Mrs C's request for a surgeon, that the timing of surgical review was reasonable and the review itself appeared to have been appropriate. Our nursing adviser indicated that staff took appropriate action in response to Mrs C's concerns about her son's deteriorating health and that they requested review as appropriate. We accepted the views of both our advisers.

Although we deemed the board's care and treatment of Master C to be reasonable we did, however, draw their attention to our medical adviser's view that that, given Master C's unplanned further operations, it would be reasonable for the board to discuss his case at a departmental meeting. On the matter of the response to Mrs C's complaint, we considered that the board did answer the question about why they decided to transfer Master C to another hospital and explained why they were unable to continue to treat him where he was.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care and treatment of his late mother (Mrs A) in the final year of her life. Mrs A suffered from shortness of breath, which became an increasing concern over the final months of her life. Her medical practice made a provisional diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) sixteen months before her death. She was seen by GPs at the practice several times after this diagnosis, in relation to this and other health complaints. She was also admitted to hospital twice in the last year of her life. During the first admission she was diagnosed with left ventricular failure (a form of heart failure). She was then referred to a cardiology consultant, who diagnosed her with congestive cardiac failure (when heart failure leads to shortness of breath). Four months later, during Mrs A's second admission to hospital, she was diagnosed with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (a rare condition when normal lung tissue is gradually replaced with stiff, immobile tissue). Following this diagnosis, Mrs A was treated with oxygen at home. She had consultations with GPs at the practice in relation to a throat infection in the three weeks before her death, but this was treated with antibiotics, and no major concerns were raised.

Mrs A died at home of a heart attack, and Mr C complained that GPs at the practice did not do enough to diagnose his mother's respiratory problems early, and that one of the GPs indicated on the death certificate that he was the doctor 'in attendance' at Mrs A's death.

We sought independent medical advice on this case. Our adviser found that the practice had taken appropriate action to diagnose a cause for Mrs A's shortness of breath. They had followed up appropriately with a referral to cardiology, and had taken appropriate steps to follow up after her hospital admissions. The adviser noted that there was nothing in Mrs A's final consultations with GPs to suggest that she was at increased risk of a heart attack. The adviser also considered that it was appropriate for the GP concerned to indicate on the death certificate that he was in attendance of her health at the time of her death, given the number of times he had seen her over the previous year, including issues relating to her heart condition. On the basis of this advice we did not uphold either of Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that when, during hospital treatment for glaucoma (an eye condition affecting vision), he asked to be treated by another clinician, his request was blocked by the consultant who was treating him. Mr C also said that the consultant who was treating him had misled him.

In investigating this complaint, we took independent advice from one of our medical advisers. Our adviser considered the key aspects of this case, including the documentation supplied by Mr C and the board. Our adviser said that there was no evidence that Mr C was incorrectly advised about the availability in the hospital of a suitably experienced clinician that could take over his glaucoma care at the time it was requested. We also found no evidence that Mr C's request had been dealt with incorrectly nor that decisions made about his request had been unreasonably delayed.

Summary

Mr C complained that the university did not provide adequate supervision for his research and then did not deal adequately with his complaints about this. Our investigation found that the university had met the requirements of their guidelines for research supervision, and that Mr C's complaint of poor supervision was handled under their university's complaints handling procedure and investigated thoroughly. Although Mr C disagreed with the outcome of the investigation there was no evidence of maladministration and we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that flooding caused by a blockage on Scottish Water's water system had damaged his property, but that they would not pay compensation.

We explained to Mr C that our role in complaints about compensation is very limited and so we would only be considering whether Scottish Water had handled his claim reasonably. Our investigation established that they had done so. Although the blockage was on their side of the pipework system, rather than on Mr C's side, they could not reasonably have been expected to have known about it beforehand, or to have taken action to prevent the flooding. In such cases, Scottish Water have no legal obligation to pay compensation.

Summary

Ms C is one of several tenants in her building. She complained that Business Stream had failed to install a meter at her property, resulting in unreasonably high invoices. She believed that her invoice represented the total use for all tenants and not solely her share.

Our investigation found that her bill had been calculated based on the correct rateable value for her own property. We also found that the decision about whether to install a meter was one that Scottish Water were entitied to make, and which we could not investigate.

Summary

Mr C complained, on behalf of Mr A, that Business Stream would not accept that Mr A had been wrongly charged for water usage over a number of years. Mr A owned a ground floor property with eight residential properties above. Mr A maintained that the water meter was wrongly connected and that it was serving the whole building rather than just his property.

During our investigation we found that Scottish Water visited the property twice to check the meter and whether there were any leaks within their pipe work. They maintained that the meter was working properly and that there was an internal leak, that Mr A was responsible for fixing. Mr A had work carried out, and this resolved the problem. We found no evidence that the meter was not working correctly or that Mr A's water meter was serving the whole building.