Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C's wife (Mrs C) visited a medical practice on a number of occasions complaining of stomach pain. Mr C complained that the practice unreasonably delayed in diagnosing his wife's illness. The practice initially gave Mrs C painkillers. When the pain did not go away the practice took blood tests to rule out cancer. Mrs C then started to complain of weight loss as well as pain. When these symptoms occurred together the doctor referred her to general surgeons at the local hospital, where Mrs C was diagnosed with mesenteric ischemia (a condition that reduces blood flow to the bowel).

To investigate the complaint we took independent advice from one of our medical advisers. He explained that this diagnosis was difficult to make, and would need to be made at a hospital as it required detailed investigations to confirm it. The adviser was satisfied that the practice had referred Mrs C appropriately when she started to have increasing pain and weight loss. The adviser confirmed that there was no evidence of an unreasonable delay in diagnosis.

Summary

Mr C suffers from ulcerative colitis (a disease where inflammation develops in the large intestine). When he became unwell, his GP advised him to go to the accident and emergency department. Mr C was admitted to hospital and given an intravenous steroid (a drug used to treat inflammation, introduced directly into a vein) while awaiting a gastroenterology (digestive system and its disorders) review. After the review, because Mr C was eating and drinking, the doctor who reviewed him prescribed the steroid in oral form (to be taken by mouth). After a discussion with the hospital pharmacist, the doctor noted that before Mr C was admitted to hospital, he had been taking a different oral steroid. The doctor, therefore, changed the prescription and put Mr C back on the steroid he had been taking before admission. Mr C was unhappy with this, as he felt that steroid had not been helping him, and he discharged himself from the hospital.

As part of our investigation we took independent advice from a medical adviser. The advice we received indicated that it was appropriate to give intravenous medication after admission to hospital, until tests are carried out and it is established that the patient can tolerate oral medication. The adviser also confirmed that the decision to re-prescribe the steroid that Mr C had been taking prior to admission was reasonable, as the effects of both steroids were similar.

Summary

Mrs C complained to the board about the care and treatment that her late husband (Mr A) received in hospital when he attended the emergency department. Mr A was discharged home but around two months later he was admitted to the hospital again where it was identified that he had terminal lung cancer that had spread to his liver and bones. Mrs C said that her husband had been suffering agonising pain in his leg over a few months and had been frequently attending his medical practice.

After taking independent advice from one of our medical advisers, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. Her husband had presented at the emergency department with pleuritic chest pain (pain associated with the lungs). Our investigation found that the hospital carried out appropriate assessments and investigations at this time. In addition, a chest x-ray and blood tests had given no indication of pneumonia or malignancy.

Summary

Mr A was an elderly man who was admitted by ambulance to a hospital accident and emergency department after complaining of chest pains. His son (Mr C) complained that the board failed to carry out appropriate investigation, diagnosis and management of Mr A's condition before deciding to discharge him from the hospital, and unreasonably failed to place Mr A in isolation. Mr C also complained that the board failed to provide an appropriate response to his complaint.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. After looking at Mr A's hospital records and taking independent advice from our medical and nursing advisers, our investigation found that the decision to discharge Mr A was reasonable and was taken after appropriate investigation, diagnosis and management were carried out. Mr A's chest pain was investigated through observation, an electrocardiogram (a test that records the electrical activity of the heart) and a blood test. Mr A had taken aspirin before going to hospital, and so we found it was reasonable that other medicines were not administered. We also found that Mr A did not meet the criteria for isolation, in that he was not considered to have a diagnosis of infectious diarrhoea or diarrhoea associated with recent antibiotic use, or both. Nor was there any need to place Mr A in a single room and the decision not to initially place Mr A in one was reasonable. The board's response to Mr C's complaint was reasonable in light of the medical and nursing care provided and Mr A's hospital records, and we concluded that it addressed all the issues Mr C raised.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy with the academic appeals process that he had to follow when he claimed that his dissertation (document of research and findings, submitted in support of candidature for an academic degree or professional qualification) was unfairly marked. He had been given a fail grade, which meant that he would not be able to go on to study for a doctorate. We explained that we could not look at academic appeals other than where there was a failure of process or mismanagement. Mr C complained that he had not been able to see the comments on his dissertation before the appeals decision meeting, and that the university had not followed their appeals procedures.

After we investigated, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that the university had followed its feedback policy, and that comments on final assessments were available if individual students approached their tutor or supervisor. They had advised Mr C to do this, but he had not. The appeals procedure did not enable individuals to question academic judgement or to debate the assessment. The university had followed its procedures in checking that assessment guidelines had been followed, and all markers were in agreement about the grade awarded. The stages of the appeals process had been followed and were clearly documented.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream unfairly and unjustly pursued his charity for payment of water and waste water services. He claimed that Business Stream failed to respond to his request for a meter to be installed; unreasonably passed the matter to a debt collection agency, when he was still in discussion with them about the bill; and were wrongly pursuing the charity for payment of services that were the responsibility of their landlord.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that the charity had not contacted a water services provider since they moved into the premises. Business Stream were, therefore, entitled to charge them for the services because they were the service providers before the previous tenant left the property. The property was not fitted with a meter, and Business Stream had correctly charged based on the rateable value. Although Mr C had asked for a meter to be installed, this was after Business Stream issued invoices for payment. They had explained to Mr C how to apply for a meter, but there was no evidence that he followed this up by submitting an application.

We did find that Business Stream had passed the charity’s account to a debt collection agency, but also that they had instructed the agency to put a hold on the account, and this was not done. The fault did not lie with Business Stream, and we noted that they took appropriate action once it came to their attention. Finally, although Mr C said that Business Stream failed to act on his advice that his landlord was responsible for some of the charges for services, we found no evidence that the landlord provided the necessary confirmation.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, told us that he loaned his digital radio to another prisoner, and the prison removed it from them. When Mr C asked for his radio back, the prison refused because they told Mr C it was not on his property card. Mr C complained that their decision not to return the radio was unreasonable.

When we investigated, the prison explained that Mr C did not have a digital radio shown on his property card. There was a radio listed on it, but it was a clock radio. The prison said the radio they removed did not match the description of the one on Mr C's property card and because of that, it would not be given to him. We were satisfied that the prison's decision not to give Mr C the radio removed from the other prisoner was reasonable and because of that, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, said the prison had unreasonably refused to allow him to have his music system in use. Mr C said he had been given permission to have the music system sent to him, so he was unhappy that he could not have it in use.

In investigating Mr C's complaint, the prison told us that Mr C had not been given permission to purchase the music system, and had arranged to have it purchased and sent to the prison without approval. They confirmed that they had looked at Mr C's music system after he received it, but that it exceeded the size of system that prisoners were permitted to purchase and have in use, and he was not allowed to have it. We were satisfied that the prison had appropriately taken a decision they were entitled to take and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison inappropriately changed his management plan. This is a plan that is put in place by the prison which outlines the agreed steps a prisoner will be required to take to demonstrate that he can manage his risk appropriately prior to him being released. In Mr C's case, the prison decided that he should spend nine months on a work placement in the community before he would be considered for progression to less secure prison conditions. It was previously proposed that he should only spend six months on a work placement and Mr C said this was agreed by the parole board.

Our investigation confirmed that the prison had taken account of the length of time Mr C had spent in closed prison conditions, and it was felt that he should be required to undertake his work placement over a longer period to allow him to demonstrate that he could manage his risk appropriately. We were satisfied that the prison had taken a decision they were entitled to take and because of that, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. We also noted that the fact that the parole board had agreed a management plan did not mean that the plan could not be changed.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison inappropriately changed his management plan. This is a plan that is put in place by the prison, and outlines the agreed steps a prisoner will be required to take to demonstrate that he can manage his risk appropriately, prior to being released. In Mr C's case, the prison decided that he should spend nine months on a work placement in the community before he would be considered for less secure prison conditions. However, while in a previous prison, it had been agreed that Mr C should only spend six months on a placement. Mr C said his original management plan had been agreed by the parole board.

Our investigation found that the prison had taken account of Mr C's behaviour while he was in custody, and in the light of this felt that he should be required to undertake his work placement over a longer period to allow him to demonstrate that he could manage his risk appropriately. We were satisfied that the prison had taken a decision they were entitled to take and because of that, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.