Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment they received at Dumfries & Galloway Royal Infirmary, after they had fallen and hurt their leg. C raised various concerns about how their injury was diagnosed and their discharge home.

We took independent advice from an adviser in emergency medicine. We found C was given appropriate care and treatment in relation to their injury. We also found it was reasonable C was discharged home. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C underwent planned laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgery (surgery to remove the gall bladder through several small cuts made in the abdomen) at University Hospital Crosshouse and was dissatisfied with the care and treatment they received. C stated that prior to discharge they felt unwell but asserted that their concerns and symptoms were dismissed, their request for review by a doctor was dismissed and they were forced out of recovery for discharge home. C experienced worsening symptoms thereafter and was readmitted to hospital ten days later. C underwent further care and treatment in the hospital setting.

The board said that there were no complications during C's planned surgery or thereafter. C met discharge criteria, so it was appropriate that they were discharged. The board acknowledged that C was readmitted and underwent further treatment but said that the only potential explanation was that a recognised complication arose.

We took independent advice from an appropriately qualified adviser. We found that the standard of C's planned surgery, performed by a registrar, was reasonable and supervised by the consultant. There was no evidence to suggest that the surgery was done without care nor that there were any problems. We noted that complications can occur despite a reasonable standard of surgery. During the immediate postoperative period, the management and provision for C's pain control appeared reasonable; C was regularly reviewed and given adequate pain control with satisfactory support from nursing staff. Despite this, C's symptoms should have prompted a review by a member of the clinical team. However, we noted that nurse-led discharge criteria give broad latitude to judgement on when to call the medical team and give inadequate guidance about when to seek support. On balance, we did not uphold this complaint. However, we provided feedback to the board with suggested improvements to their discharge criteria.

Summary

C, a support and advocacy worker, submitted a complaint on behalf of their clients (A and B) regarding the support provided to them by the council's social work service. B is A's main carer and they had concerns that their needs were not assessed appropriately and that they have not been able to use the Self-Directed Support and respite allocation flexibly to meet their needs.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that there was evidence in the records that the council collaborated and consulted appropriately with A and B, had appropriately assessed A's needs and had taken into account information from health professionals involved in A's care. We also noted that the council acted reasonably regarding the flexibility of the Self-Directed Support and respite allocation for A and B and it was reasonable that the direct payment was in A's name given that A is the adult with the assessed health needs. We also considered that reasonable action was taken by the council regarding care and support for A, when B was recovering from operations.

We did not uphold C's complaint that the support provided to A and B was unreasonable.

Summary

C complained that Live Borders had failed to deal with their complaint appropriately. We found that it had been reasonable for the organisation not to pursue contact with witnesses who C had referred to and to instead ask that C obtained statements from them. We also found that the organisation had reasonably investigated the matter and had issued a reasonable response to C's complaint. Whilst there was a clear disagreement between C and the organisation about what had happened, there was no evidence that the organisation did not intend to conduct a genuine investigation or that they supplied dishonest and false information to C. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C complained on behalf of their family member (A) about Hillcrest Housing Association. A had been a tenant of the association and reported various problems with the property some years ago. Following a chartered surveyor's report, which identified several issues, a number of alterations were made to the property.

C disagreed that the association had repaired the property to a tolerable standard.

In recent years, A reported an alleged insect infestation. Various investigations were done, and A was decanted from the property for a temporary period. C disputed the association's view that there was no evidence of an insect infestation. C also complained that the association failed to provide A with alternative accommodation.

We found that there was evidence that the association had followed their decant process when dealing with the concerns that A had raised. We considered that the association took the concerns about infestation seriously and acted reasonably to address allegations of an ongoing pest infestation. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

We also found that the association made reasonable efforts to offer alternative accommodation in response to A's ongoing concerns. We did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.

In terms of repairs to the property, we identified evidence to demonstrate that the association had responded reasonably to the reported concerns. Overall, we found no reason for the association to doubt the professional judgement of those involved. We, therefore, did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

Ms C made several reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) to the Castle Rock Edinvar Housing Association over a number of years. She complained about how her reports of ASB were handled by the association, and particularly that they did not progress action to evict a tenant. We noted that the association sought and considered legal advice, which informed their decision not to commence eviction proceedings. Ms C also complained that the association did not contact the local authority's Family and Household Support Service (FHSS) regarding an Anti-social Behaviour Order (ASBO). We noted that the association had not contacted the FHSS as they had taken the decision that the serving of an ASBO was not indicated. They subsequently contacted the service to discuss Ms C's complaint, and the FHSS appeared content that this was a matter for the association and they did not have to be involved. We considered the association's ASB policy would benefit from being clearer on what the purpose of contact with the FHSS might be and when this might be considered on individual cases. We fed this back to the association. However, we considered that the association managed the situation appropriately and with regard to their policy. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

We noted that the association sometimes referred to reports of ASB as complaints about ASB, and we considered this raised the potential for confusion between reports of ASB and formal complaints of service failure (including how reports of ASB have been handled). Ms C complained that the association failed to treat an email she sent them as a formal complaint. We noted that Ms C had submitted a further report of ASB that the association were looking into, when she submitted her email complaining about their handling of her previous report of ASB. The association did not accept this complaint while their enquiries into the current ASB report were still ongoing. We recognised that Ms C was entitled to raise reports of ASB and formal complaints concurrently. However, we also recognised that simultaneous investigation of these might lead to unnecessary duplication of effort. On balance, we considered that the association's decision to delay acceptance of a new complaint was reasonable in the circumstances. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Finally, Ms C complained that the association's ultimate response to her formal complaint was unreasonable. We noted that the association's complaint investigation concluded that they had followed their internal processes. As we reached the same conclusion, we considered that their response was reasonable. We saw evidence of a detailed investigation plan and a genuine effort to address Ms C's concerns in full. We did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Summary

C complained about the partnership's decision in relation to a charging appeal relating to their parent (A). A transferred their property to their children several years ago. Five years after this transfer, A moved to residential care. The partnership undertook a financial assessment of A and took internal legal advice as to whether the transfer of that property should be treated as a deliberate deprivation of capital in order to reduce accommodation charge. The partnership concluded that the transfer was a deliberate deprivation of assets and as such A was regarded as having the notional value of the property as capital in addition to their actual assets.

C appealed the partnership's decision and asserted that A had not intended to deprive themselves of an asset when transferring the property to their children. The partnership did not uphold the appeal and considered that the transfer of the property did constitute a deprivation of an asset and as such A was assessed as having actual and notional capital which exceeded the capital threshold.

C was dissatisfied and brought their complaint to us. While we could not review the decision taken by the partnership or over-turn it, we considered whether the decision taken was made on reasonable grounds.

We found no evidence of any failures in the partnership's decision-making and determined that it appeared that the partnership took all relevant information into account when reaching their original decision and when considering the appeal. We did not uphold C's complaint.

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment they received from the physiotherapy service at a particular appointment. C was concerned that they were asked to walk from the waiting room to the appointment room using crutches, rather than being provided with a wheelchair.

We took independent advice from a physiotherapist. We found that at a previous appointment (three weeks prior to the appointment in question), C reported that they could mobilise with crutches. In the circumstances, we found that it was reasonable for the physiotherapist to ask C to mobilise from the waiting area to the treatment area. We did not uphold C's complaint about the care and treatment they received from the physiotherapy service.

C also complained about the way the partnership handled their complaint. We did not identify any issues regarding the way that the partnership responded to C's complaints. We did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.

Summary

C, an advocacy and support worker, complained on behalf of their client (A) who was admitted to University Hopsital Hairmyres with delirium which was found to be caused by a urine infection. A was seen by a doctor who firstly detained them for 72 hours under the Mental Health Act. When the time period ended the detention period was extended to 28 days. A was then transferred to another hospital where the staff did not feel that there was a requirement for the detention and it was rescinded. A felt that the decision to detain them was not clinically required and that the hospital failed to carry out an appropriate mental health assessment on their admission to hospital.

We took independent advice from a consultant psychiatrist. We found that an appropriate mental health assessement was carried out based on A's symptoms. We found that although A did have a urine infection which would have caused their delirium, there was sufficient clinical indication that A was suffering from a mental health problem and that there were grounds to detain them under the Mental Health Act.

We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C, a support and advocacy worker, complained on behalf of their client (A) who was diagnosed with cervical cancer whilst they were undergoing fertility treatment. C complained that the board failed to investigate A's symptoms which they had been experiencing for a number of months, and that this led to a delay in diagnosis. C also complained that the board failed to carry out a reasonable investigation of the complaint as their response did not demonstrate that any real analysis was undertaken of the care and treatment provided to A.

The board confirmed their view that appropriate investigations were carried out. They explained that A had a type of cancer (endophytic, where there is no obvious cancer as it is within the body of the cervix) which is more difficult to diagnose.

We reviewed the clinical records and took independent advice from a consultant in gynaecologic oncology (a specialist in the diagnosis and treatment of cancers of the female reproductive system). We found that the referrals, tests and assessments were in line with best medical practice and within reasonable timeframes. As such, there was no missed opportunity to diagnose the cancer sooner. We also found evidence that the board's internal investigation of the complaint was thorough and reasonable. We did not uphold C's complaints, however, we did provide feedback on the board's handling of the complaint.