Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

C attended A&E at Glasgow Royal Infirmary with acute pain in their spine; they were admitted in the early hours of the morning and discharged the same day. During their admission, C underwent a hip x-ray scan.

C complained that the care and treatment they received during their visit was not of a reasonable standard. C found their experience to be traumatic and states that it had a lasting emotional impact on them. C had several concerns about their experience; in particular, their pain management and the board's radiology findings.

We took independent advice from an appropriately qualified adviser. We found that the board's approach to pain management was appropriate but felt that it would have been good practice for the board to document C's pain score and actions taken as a result of that score – this was provided as feedback to the board. We also found that C's x-ray was appropriately assessed and concluded that the management of C's radiology (analysis of medical imaging of the body) findings was reasonable.

We considered that the care and treatment offered to C when they attended hospital was reasonable and we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

C complained to the practice about the treatment that they received when they contacted the practice with back problems. C spoke to a GP and an advanced nurse practitioner (ANP) by telephone during that period due to the COVID-19 restrictions and C was advised to make further contact should their situation worsen. C was taken by ambulance to hospital and after a CT scan was diagnosed as having cauda equine syndrome (a disorder that affects the nerves). C felt that the GP and the ANP should have seen them in person for an examination and that had this been the case, the correct diagnosis of cauda equine syndrome would have been reached sooner and would not have had such a drastic effect on their health.

We took independent advice from a GP and an ANP. We found that C had a previous history of back problems over a number of years which were felt to be sciatica (back and leg pain caused by irritation or compression of the sciatic nerve) and musculo-skeletal in nature and that it was not unreasonable to attribute C's reported symptoms to those conditions. However, when C attended hospital their condition had deteriorated and they had reported new symptoms which were red flag signs of cauda equine syndrome. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C complained to us, on behalf of A, that the board failed to appropriately diagnose and treat A during their attendances at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary. A had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, a disease of the lungs in which the airways become narrowed) and had also previously been diagnosed with probable left sided lung cancer several years earlier. At that time, it was agreed that A would receive high dose palliative radiotherapy (a treatment using high-energy radiation).

Over a period of eight months, A was admitted to hospital nine times. The first five of these admissions were to a respiratory ward and the last four to a general medical ward. They were treated for worsening of COPD and increasing frailty. A had a fall during one of the admissions, but was subsequently discharged home. C said that at that time, A was not fit for discharge as they required to be readmitted again a few days later when they were told that they had terminal cancer. A's condition subsequently deteriorated further and they died the following month.

We took independent advice from a consultant geriatrician (a doctor specialising in medical care for the elderly). Although the board had acknowledged that the clinical records did not show that A's underlying diagnosis of cancer was discussed with them in appointments in the final two years of their life, we found that there was no evidence that the board failed to properly diagnose and treat A during the relevant hospital admissions. We did not uphold this complaint.

C also complained that the board failed to communicate appropriately with A during this period, despite them having power of attorney for A. We found that A's care and treatment were discussed reasonably with both C and A and we therefore, did not uphold this complaint.

C complained that the board failed to handle A's complaint in line with their obligations. We were satisfied that the board dealt with A's complaint in accordance with their complaints handling policy and this complaint was not upheld.

Finally, C complained that the board unreasonably failed to certify correctly the cause of A's death. Whilst the initial death certificate was not incorrect, it was revised to give more clarity. Although we found that it would have been better for C to have been provided with a more detailed explanation for the required change in the first place, it is not unusual for death certificates to be revised in these circumstances. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

C, a support and advocacy worker, complained on behalf of their client (A) and their partner. A and their partner's child (B) was born at 30 weeks gestation. B was severely disabled and died when they were two years old. B's parents had been told that B had suffered hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy (HIE, a form of brain injury that occurs when the brain does not receive sufficient oxygen) due to a lack of oxygen in the period prior to their birth. Despite HIE being detailed in B's records as a diagnosis, the board contended that B did not have this condition when responding to B's parents' formal complaint.

B's parents considered there to have been an unreasonable delay to A receiving an emergency section following their urgent referral from Peterhead Hospital to Aberdeen Maternity Hospital. C asked us to investigate whether the level of care that A received from the board fell below a reasonable standard and whether any deficiencies in the standard of care may have contributed to B's health problems.

We took independent advice from a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist (a doctor who specialises in pregnancy, childbirth and the female reproductive system) and a senior midwife. We found that A was appropriately given a cardiotacograph (CTG, a way of recording the fetal heartbeat and the uterine contractions during pregnancy) at Peterhead Hospital on the first date complained of, and was appropriately transferred to Aberdeen Maternity Hospital. In relation to the second date complained of, we found that A was again appropriately transferred to Aberdeen Maternity Hospital, although we noted that a CTG was inappropriately stopped at one time, once A had been transferred. However, we also found that transfer to the labour ward took place at an appropriate time and that the decision to move A to theatre and carry out an emergency caesarean section was taken at an appropriate time. The advice we were given did not indicate a connection between the results of tests undertaken at this time and any health problems that B suffered following their birth. We considered that the board's overall management of A had been reasonable and did not uphold the complaint. However, we provided feedback to the board regarding record-keeping.

Summary

C's parent (A) had complained for a number of years about pain in their legs. They considered that their concerns had been dismissed and that they weren't reasonably responded to. A later required a stent and an angioplasty (a procedure to widen narrowed or obstructed arteries or veins) after they experienced a blockage of an artery in their leg. While initially successful, the stent then blocked, leading to a second procedure. A later had their leg amputated. C considers this could have been avoided with earlier treatment.

C complained that the board failed to reasonably respond to issues regarding A's feet and legs. We took independent advice from a vascular adviser (treats disorders of the circulatory system). We found that prior to the severe blockage experienced by A, the actions taken by the board in response to their symptoms of pain and numbness were reasonable. We found that these symptoms were unrelated to the sudden onset situation where A had blockage of the external iliac vessel (relating to the large broad bone forming the upper part of each half of the pelvis or the nearby regions of the lower body) on the left side, and we found that the response to this blockage was reasonable. When the stent then became blocked, we found that the response to this was also reasonable. However, communication with A and their family could have been better in terms of explaining A's symptoms, how A was followed up after the procedure and the possibility that the initial stent could fail.

While there were some communication issues and there should have been further follow-up after the first stent was placed, we found that the overall the treatment provided by the board was reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment that they received in Accident & Emergency (A&E) following an accident. In particular, C was concerned that they were not kept in hospital for at least 24 hours following the accident, that they did not receive emergency surgery and that their x-rays were not looked at properly to identify the full extent of their injuries.

We took independent advice from an emergency medical adviser and a radiology adviser (analyses images of the body). We found that it was appropriate to manage C's injuries conservatively and that there was not a need for emergency surgery, that it was appropriate to discharge C with a plan for follow-up with the orthopaedic (conditions involving the musculoskeletal system) surgeons and that the A&E staff correctly identified C's injuries from the x-rays. We, therefore, did not uphold C's complaint regarding the care received in A&E.

C also complained about the orthopaedic care and treatment that they received. We took independent advice from a consultant orthopaedic surgeon and a radiology adviser. We found that assessments and examinations carried out by the orthopaedic department were reasonable. We, therefore, did not uphold C's complaint in this regard.

Summary

C complained that the council, as the building control and planning authority, failed to take reasonable action to address an alleged non-compliance with building control standards legislation and an ongoing breach of a planning condition in relation to the discharge of wastewater at the development site where they resided. C's own property had been built a number of years previously. An issue arose regarding the discharge of wastewater from new houses which were being built at the development site.

We took independent advice from a building control adviser and a planning adviser. We found that the developer initially planned to connect the properties at the development site to the sewer network and that building warrants were approved based on their proposals in this respect. When it became apparent that the sewer network required upgrading works before the new houses could be connected to it, we considered that the council undertook reasonable steps to ensure that the revised plan of using a septic tank as a temporary measure was acceptable in building standards terms.

We were satisfied that the council sought comments from relevant authorities (Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish Water), both of whom were satisfied with the proposed temporary solution. We were also satisfied that provisions were made in later building warrant approvals to ensure that the developer took responsibility for decommissioning the temporary system and connecting to the sewer network once the upgrading works were completed.

In relation to C's complaint that the council failed to take reasonable action in relation to an ongoing breach of a planning condition attached to the development, we were satisfied that, whilst the council had a range of enforcement powers available to them, it was a matter for their discretion as to whether or not to take formal action, to allow the breach to remain, or to take less formal action with a view to reaching a resolution. We found that the council had acted in accordance with the relevant legislation and both national and local policy, procedures, standards and guidance including the terms of its own planning enforcement charter. We also found that there were currently attempts to resolve the problem which had not yet been exhausted and the council had left open the option for formal enforcement action to be taken if required.

We did not identify evidence of any maladministration on the part of the council in their handling of these matters and, therefore, did not uphold C's complaints.

Summary

C was in contact with the council in relation to their child's (A) transition from primary to secondary education. A had experienced negative behaviour while at primary school and C had concerns about A's safety as, if they transitioned to the secondary school linked with the primary school, the pupils involved in historic events would be attending the same school. C was in contact with the council about the assessments carried out in relation to A's safety and wellbeing and was seeking further information from the council in order to determine which school A would attend. The council restricted C's contact with them after some of their contact was deemed unacceptable.

C complained that the council unreasonably failed to provide them with the information requested in order for C to make an informed decision about A's education provision. We found that the council had ensured a wellbeing assessment and risk assessment was carried out for A for the secondary school. C remained of the view that there were issues relating to A attending this school and alternative schools were offered. There was information which C requested which could not be provided and there were reasons for why the council could not provide this. As such we did not uphold the complaint.

C complained that the council unreasonably expected C to make a decision about A's education provision without the information requested. While C remained of the view the level of information was insufficient, we found the level of information provided was reasonable in order for C to make an informed decision about A's schooling. It was reasonable for the council to expect C to make a decision based on the information available. We did not uphold the complaint.

C complained that the council unreasonably failed to provide an accurate risk assessment relating to A's attendance at the secondary school. We found that a reasonable risk assessment was carried out which took account of the views of A and A's parents. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

C contacted their child's (A) primary school to report concerns about bullying. Two days later an incident occurred between A and other pupils in the school grounds involving a sharp object. C complained to the council about their response to their concerns and the actions they took to safeguard A. Unhappy with their response, C brought their complaint to our office.

We found that the school had discretion to consider what was an appropriate response to allegations of bullying, and the response was in line with policy. We found the actions of the council were reasonable. We did not uphold this complaint.

In relation to safeguarding, we found that the council exercised their professional judgement to assess the risks and put measures in place to mitigate those risks. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

C complained that the council's handling of reports of bullying of C's child was unreasonable. The council said that the school had taken C's complaints seriously and acted in line with appropriate guidance and policies. Restorative measures had been taken to attempt to resolve the conflict between the children concerned. The council acknowledged that punitive measure may have been preferred by parents and that their approach may have, therefore, been frustrating. Moreover, the council were limited about the amount of information that could be given to C because of confidentiality issues involving another child.

We found evidence to show that action had been taken in line with the council's stated policy. There was no evidence to show that incidents involving C's child were ongoing and occurring and after consideration, we did not uphold the complaint.