Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr and Mrs C were unhappy with the advice and information that they received from their medical practice. These included that the practice unreasonably gave Mrs C the impression she had breast cancer; failed to advise Mr C to return if his skin condition changed; handled their request for a home visit for their son inappropriately; and failed to communicate their son’s death appropriately within the practice.

In our investigation, we reviewed the correspondence that Mr and Mrs C provided and the practice’s complaint file. We also obtained independent advice on the appropriate medical records from one of our medical advisers (who is a GP).

In terms of the first two complaints, the adviser said that, where a GP suspects cancer, they should generally frame matters in such a way as to minimise alarm. The adviser noted that Mr C’s notes stated ‘and review’ (indicating that the GP intended Mr C to return). On the third complaint, the adviser noted that Mr and Mrs C’s son had a mental health condition, and that the practice made a distinction between physical and mental conditions for house calls. However, this was not considered unreasonable. Finally, the adviser indicated that a medical practice would not generally know that a patient had died until they were told by another source. Depending on the circumstances, this could involve a hospital, the Procurator Fiscal or the police. The adviser said that from the notes, it did not look as though the practice had been told that Mr and Mrs C's son had died.

While we recognised how significant these complaints were for Mr and Mrs C – they had been patients of their practice for over 30 years and had also recently lost their son - the privacy of medical consultations limited the evidence available. In the evidence that we did see, in combination with the advice we received, we found nothing to indicate that the practice had acted unreasonably.

Summary

Mr C complained that when he made a request to the practice for a copy of his late mother's GP clinical records he was not provided with a full copy of her records for the previous ten years. He also had concerns that since 2005 his mother had visited the practice with recurrent ear infections, but it was not until late 2010 that she was referred to an ear nose and throat consultant, who diagnosed a tumour in her ear.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that the practice had provided a full copy of his late mother's records and had explained that they initially kept paper records before moving to electronic records. We also found that although Mr C's mother had reported ear infections intermittently since 2005, these had cleared with treatment. By 2010 the ear problem with which she presented to the practice was different.

Summary

Miss C was diagnosed with chronic kidney disease (CKD) in 2007. She complained that a GP at her medical practice incorrectly advised her to stop taking high blood pressure medication after she reported experiencing side effects. The GP had prescribed the medication for Miss C in 2008 because her blood pressure was elevated and this could have affected her kidney function. Miss C also complained that her kidney function continued to decrease but nothing was done to address this. In addition, she was unhappy that the GP did not properly investigate pain she had reported having in her side.

After taking independent advice from one of our medical advisers, we did not uphold Miss C's complaints. Our investigation found no evidence that the GP had advised Miss C to discontinue the blood pressure medication. We considered that this was unlikely to have affected the progression of her CKD because she was managed in accordance with the national guidelines for the condition. Had Miss C been diagnosed with high blood pressure and had a significant amount of protein in her urine then it would have been appropriate for her to have remained on the medication. We also considered that there was no indication that the GP needed to make an urgent referral in relation to the backache Miss A had reported and that appropriate pain relief and a referral to physiotherapy was made.

Summary

Mr C complained that the university did not allow him to submit his dissertation late. During our investigation, we considered the regulations for his course, and found that these clearly explained that any coursework submitted more than one week after the submission date would not be marked. Mr C had said that other students were given extensions for their dissertations. However, the university also told us that there is no right to an extension and that Mr C had failed to ask for an extension before the required deadline.

Mr C also complained that the university failed to take his period of obligatory military service in his home country into account. We found that Mr C had raised this in both his appeal and his complaint to the university, and were satisfied that the university had taken this into account. Finally, he complained that the university did not allow him to re-register as a distance learning student. However, our investigation found that the course he had requested was not in fact available for study by distance learning.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream had been wrongly charging his business after removing a meter from his business premises.

On consideration of Business Stream's many letters to Mr C, our investigation found that it was clear that all the policy and procedural information they had provided was accurate. For example, in the circumstances it was appropriate to remove the meter, then to charge the business on charges using the rateable value as a basis, even though such charges would probably have been higher than metered charges. They also appropriately advised Mr C how it might be possible for him reduce the charges, and they had given detailed, accurate explanations of a large number of points.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he was being inappropriately denied the opportunity to attend his work party. Mr C said that on the mornings he attended the gym, he would not be taken to work.

Our investigation of Mr C's complaint confirmed that he was employed by the laundry work party to work mornings. The prison explained that the laundry work party was oversubscribed and because of this they divided the work between morning workers and afternoon workers. The prison explained that Mr C chose to attend the gym some mornings each week and because of that, he would not be taken to work. However, the prison said that even though he attended the gym instead of work, he still received the appropriate wage payment. In light of the information, we were satisfied that Mr C was not being inappropriately denied the opportunity to attend work.

Water

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he was unreasonably refused access to the special escorted leave (SEL) scheme. Under the scheme, an eligible prisoner can be authorised leave of absence from prison for the purpose of visiting their home for a couple of hours.

Mr C is serving a sentence of twelve years and had been transferred from a closed prison to the national top end facility. (A top end is the half way point between closed prison and open conditions.) Mr C said he had been led to believe that when he arrived there he would be allowed to participate in the SEL scheme. Our investigation found that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) progression policy says that a prisoner needs to have served four years out of a twelve-year sentence before they become eligible to be considered for transfer to less secure conditions. In Mr C's case, he had only served three and a half years of his sentence, and the SPS accepted, with hindsight, that they should not have accepted him for transfer at that point in his sentence. In addition, one of the criteria in the SPS SEL guidance was that a prisoner must have served at least a third of their sentence, and Mr C had not done that either. Because of those factors, the prison responsible for managing the top end facility explained to Mr C that he had been accepted for progression too early and would not be allowed to participate in the SEL scheme at this time.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that prisoners only had access to water which was not as good quality as the water available to staff in his prison. Our investigation established that this was not the case. Staff and prisoners had access to water coolers of different types. For reasons of flexibility, staff tended to have the type with bottled water and prisoners tended to have the type that require proximity to a water tap (at which point the water went through a filtration process). In any case, we found that prisons were not required to provide anything other than normal tap water for prisoners.

Mr C considered that the prison's reply to his complaint about the above was wrong because he thought it conflicted with another reply he had received. However, we were satisfied that this was not the case.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he was asked to sign a form in prison to say that he agreed to comply with certain standards of behaviour. We were satisfied that it was appropriate for the prison to seek to manage prisoner behaviour by introducing a form about expected behaviour standards if they wished to do so, and to invite prisoners to sign it to signify agreement. We also considered it appropriate that prisoners did not have to sign but that, if they chose not to do so, this would be noted in their records.

Mr C also considered that the prison's reply to his complaint was wrong because he said it conflicted with a reply to another prisoner. We could not comment on the other prisoner's complaint for reasons of confidentiality, and because we did not know the full story of that complaint or the reply to it. However, we were satisfied that the prison's reply to his own complaint was not inaccurate.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison had decided to put his outgoing mail on the mail intercept scheme. This meant that any non legal or non privileged mail that he sent out of the prison could be opened and read by prison staff. Mr C complained that the decision was unreasonable because there was no evidence to support the prison's position.

Our investigation found that the prison took this decison after a copy of a letter he sent to the council was returned to the prison. When prison staff read the letter, which they were entitled to do, they felt its content was threatening. Because of that, the prison took the decision to place Mr C's outgoing non legal or non privileged mail on the mail intercept scheme. We were satisfied the prison had taken a decision they were entitled to take and because of that, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.