Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that his medical practice refused to update him on changes in his son (Master A)’s medical file, about which his estranged wife had not told him. Mr C also complained that the practice had prevented him from transferring his son to an alternative practice in the area.

We looked at the information provided by Mr C and obtained information from the practice. We also took independent advice from our GP adviser. Our investigation found that the practice were not required to keep Mr C informed, and that it was a matter for him and his estranged wife to resolve. We also found that the practice had acted correctly dealing with Mr C's request to transfer Master A, as it was not reasonable for one parent to try to re-register a child without the other parent's knowledge.

Summary

Mr C complained that staff failed to involve him and his brother in discussions about future care plans for their mother (Mrs A). He said that staff decided that their mother was to be moved to another hospital to be assessed for a nursing home without any consultation with the family. We found that this was a difficult situation where Mr C and his brother, along with the health care team, were trying to get the best outcome for Mrs A. It appears that Mrs A was not able to return home and staff did their best to involve Mr C and his brother in the discharge arrangements. There was clearly some confusion regarding Mrs A's transfer to another hospital. The records showed that Mr C was told that his mother would have a further assessment for a nursing home there. The doctor also tried to contact Mr C again to discuss this before Mrs A was transferred, but there was no answer.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint about this, as we found that the records provided evidence that staff spoke to Mr C and his brother very frequently throughout their mother's stay in hospital. There was no evidence of shortcomings in relation to communication and we were satisfied that staff took on Mr C's concerns about Mrs A's future care plans when he later complained about this.

Mr C also complained that staff inappropriately assessed Mrs A without ensuring that her hearing aid was in place. Although Mrs A lost her hearing aid on several occasions, we were satisfied that staff took reasonable steps to obtain replacements. Ideally, a patient should be wearing a hearing aid when being assessed. However, where this is not possible, as in Mrs A's case, it is reasonable for staff to carry out an assessment without the hearing aid in place, providing that they speak clearly and loudly during the assessment. Finally, Mr C complained that staff failed to adequately investigate his concerns that some of Mrs A’s clothing had been lost. We were satisfied that staff adequately dealt with his concerns about this.

Summary

Mrs C complained that her GP had failed to diagnose her heart condition, and that as a result she had suffered a heart attack and had needed hospital treatment.

Our investigation found that Mrs C had gone to her GP with symptoms of postural hypertension (changes in blood pressure, caused by changes in position, such as moving from sitting to standing). After taking independent advice from one of our medical advisers, we did not uphold the complaint, as we found the treatment she received was appropriate for this condition. There was no evidence that the GP had failed to identify symptoms of an imminent heart attack.

Summary

Mr C complained about the university's handling of his appeal. Mr C was withdrawn from his post-graduate research because of unsatisfactory progress. He considered the decision had been made hastily and unfairly. He appealed, and the university upheld his appeal taking into consideration some difficult circumstances he had faced. The decision, however, required him to participate in a review procedure that he had complained about in his appeal, saying it was not being properly conducted. He, therefore, did not accept the offer of resuming his post-graduate studies and brought his complaints to us. He also complained in his appeal that procedures had not been followed when he was withdrawn and so he had lost time by having to appeal that decision. Our investigation found, however, that the university had reasonably carried out the review process and followed procedures in withdrawing Mr C and we did not uphold his complaints.

Summary

Mr C failed a practical element of an examination and submitted an appeal, which the university upheld. However, Mr C was not happy with the remedy they put in place and complained to us that the university did not offer him another attempt at the whole examination without penalty.

As part of our investigation, we looked at the information provided by Mr C and the university. We did not uphold the complaint, as we found that the university had acted in line with their regulations and normal practice, and Mr C had not been disadvantaged.

Summary

Miss C appealed against the university's decision to discontinue her studies and not to allow her to re-sit examinations. She submitted medical evidence she felt was not taken into account at the appeal stages and said that she was not invited to attend meetings. The university determined that there were no grounds to consider her appeal. Miss C then complained to us.

Our investigation found that throughout the appeal process her medical and personal circumstances were fully taken into account and that the university had given her numerous repeat attempts to achieve the credits needed for her degree. We did not uphold her complaint, as we found that the university had followed their appeal procedures and acted reasonably throughout the process.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment provided to her by an optometrist (a healthcare professional concerned with the health of the eyes). When Mrs C had problems with her right eye, she went to her GP, who prescribed eye drops and referred Mrs C to her local opticians. The opticians were members of the Grampian Eye Health Network, which provides assessments and treatment in the community for certain eye conditions. The network is supported by advice from a local hospital eye clinic via a phone helpline, which members can also use to make urgent referrals to hospital.

Mrs C was seen by the optometrist several times that month and was diagnosed with ulcers or marginal keratitis (inflammation of the outer layer of the eye). The optometrist advised her to continue with the drops prescribed by her GP, and added further treatments. They also took advice from the eye clinic via the helpline. Mrs C's condition seemed to improve, as the ulcers were reducing in size, but by the start of the next month she was still experiencing pain and inflammation. She phoned the optometrist saying that following research on the internet she had stopped all treatment and was requesting a referral to the hospital eye clinic. She was seen at the opticians the following day. The ulcers were found to have increased in size again and the optometrist made an urgent referral to hospital. Mrs C was seen in the eye clinic the next day, was admitted to hospital and received in-patient treatment for ten days.

After taking independent advice from one of our medical advisers we found that the care and treatment provided to Mrs C was reasonable, appropriate and timely. The adviser considered that the optometrist had prescribed reasonable treatment, which followed the advice and guidance of the network and also complied with that issued by the Royal College of Optometrists.

Summary

Mr C said that Transport Scotland had not properly investigated his complaint about a rail provider. Mr C originally complained to a rail provider when a member of station staff refused to issue him with a discounted ticket that he was entitled to under the terms and conditions of a new deal railcard. Mr C said he felt bullied and humiliated by the member of staff. Dissatisfied with the response to his complaint, Mr C escalated it to Transport Scotland who had responsibility for the franchise agreement with the rail company. He said that Transport Scotland unreasonably concluded that the rail company had properly investigated his complaints. He said that they had accepted, without reasonable investigation, the rail provider's claims that he had changed his route when in fact his start and destination stations had remained unchanged throughout and that there were suitable available alternatives for the purchase of discounted tickets. He also said that Transport Scotland had failed to establish whether his complaint had been escalated to the director of the rail provider.

We concluded, however, that Mr C's complaints had been reasonably investigated. Transport Scotland had questioned the rail provider when Mr C disputed the statements they made about the purchase of tickets. They had also investigated, as far as it was possible to do so, whether Mr C's complaint had been escalated to the director. They did not investigate the matter of Mr C having changed his destination stations, because Mr C had never made this point clearly to them. In terms of whether the rail provider had reasonably investigated Mr C's complaint, we concluded Transport Scotland had considered the matter appropriately. They had established how the complaint had been responded to and what actions had been taken to prevent recurrence. We could not find any fault or omission in the investigation process that would lead us to question Transport Scotland's decision.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that there was an unreasonable delay in the risk management team (RMT) identifying that he should participate in further group work. Mr C said he had advised previous RMTs that he had an outstanding need, and that his progression to less secure conditions had been approved by an RMT at a different prison despite this.

In investigating Mr C's complaint, we obtained a copy of his most recent RMT referral form. The RMT noted in their decision that new information was discussed and it was agreed that it was not appropriate to progress Mr C at that time. We asked the prison what new information was discussed. The prison confirmed that when Mr C transferred from another prison, his risk assessment was out of date. Because of that, an up-to-date risk assessment was carried out before the RMT considered Mr C for progression. The risk assessment identified him as being a moderate risk of re-offending. In addition, Mr C had previously participated in programme work but the post-programme report noted that he had not had the opportunity to address an element of this, which should be addressed in further treatment. Because of that, the RMT decided they could not support Mr C's progression to less secure conditions until he had addressed his outstanding need.

We noted that an up-to-date risk assessment was completed, and referral to the RMT happened, within eight months of Mr C arriving at the prison. Because of that, we did not agree that there had been an unreasonable delay.

Summary

Mr C complained that a prison officer had written comments about inappropriate behaviour in Mr C's record. Mr C thought that the comments would have an adverse effect on his prospects, for example, with the Parole Board.

We were satisfied, from relevant Scottish Prison Service guidance, that it was appropriate and, in fact, expected that prison officers would record their observations about prisoners. The guidance made it clear that such comments were part of a wide range of information, collected from a range of sources and considered as part of a whole, rather than in isolation. The form on which the comments were written also had text printed across the top to the effect that any information on the form would be seen as a contribution and not assessed in isolation. We took the view that the officer had not acted inappropriately in recording the comments and that they should not, in isolation, affect Mr C's prospects.