Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

C complained that Scottish Water had failed to respond appropriately to a number of flooding incidents in their property. C said that Scottish Water had not been open or honest about the cause of the flooding and were refusing to take the only action which would guarantee the protection of their property. C said that Scottish Water’s position had changed whenever they were presented with evidence, which suggested they were responsible for the flooding.

Scottish Water denied that they had acted unreasonably, or that they had failed to investigate the causes of the flooding experienced by C’s property. Scottish Water said that they were not responsible for damaged pipework within the property and the public sewerage network had been working properly. They said that there were likely to be different causes for the flooding incidents C had experienced, but that all of them had been investigated. Scottish Water acknowledged that this had taken time, but said there had been a need to liaise with a number of other stakeholders, including the local authority and utility companies.

We found that Scottish Water had investigated the incidents of flooding. Additionally, they had correctly informed C that they were not responsible for flooding which emanated from private pipework. C maintained that the private pipework had been damaged by the failure of the public sewer network, which Scottish Water were responsible for. We did not find evidence which supported this, and it was not the only possible cause of damage to the pipework as C had suggested. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

C also complained that Scottish Water failed to handle their complaint reasonably. We considered that Scottish Water investigated the complaint appropriately. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the actions of the council’s social work services department. This was following referrals made by Police Scotland and an NHS board, after there were concerns about Mr C’s whereabouts and wellbeing. On the basis of these referrals, the council wrote to Mr C and advised him that they did not feel there was a need for Adult Services to intervene at that time but that he could contact them if there was anything else he felt they could support him with.

In Mr C’s view, the council unreasonably failed to contact him by telephone and within 24 hours, despite assurances that were given to him by other parties. In addition to this, he said that the council’s conclusion that there was no requirement for Adult Services at that time was unreasonable.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We concluded that it was reasonable for the council to write out to Mr C rather than phoning him within 24 hours. This was because the referral information provided to the council by Police Scotland and the NHS board did not indicate that there was a requirement to contact him by phone or within 24 hours.

We also found that it was reasonable for the council to conclude that there was no role for Adult Services at that time. Again, the council’s decision was based on the referral information provided by Police Scotland and the NHS board. This information stated that there were no immediate concerns for Mr C’s welfare and that he was not presenting as having any acute mental ill health conditions. Therefore, based on the information known to them at the time, we considered the council’s actions to be reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C’s complaints.

Summary

C had a child (A). C was subject to a Pre-Birth Risk Assessment. The council put in place a rehabilitation plan to support C in caring for A. It was accepted that this plan did not clearly communicate the council’s concerns to C. The council decided to restart the rehabilitation process (though a shorter one) and considered providing feedback in a different way. The second rehabilitation plan was unsuccessful and A was placed in foster care full-time.

C complained that the council did not provide them with sufficient support to enable A to live with them.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the council provided C with reasonable support to enable them to care for A, and noted that C did not always engage with this support. For this reason, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C complained about the partnership's decision to conduct Adult Support and Protection (ASP) enquiries following receipt of concerns about their child (A). C complained that social work acted upon false information and that A did not meet the criteria for commencing an ASP investigation. The partnership advised that their social work staff acted in accordance with their procedures.

As part of our investigation, we reviewed the case records and sought independent advice from a social worker. We found that there was reasonable evidence that A met the criteria for an ASP investigation and, based on the information received by the partnership at the time, it was reasonable that they conducted enquiries under their ASP duties. There was no evidence that the partnership did not follow their procedures correctly, therefore we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C complained on behalf of their parent (A) about the care and treatment they received during an admission to Ninewells Hospital. A was given a working diagnosis of a urinary tract infection (UTI) with delirium but was later diagnosed with encephalitis (inflammation of the brain). C said that because A regularly suffered UTIs, assumptions were made that A was experiencing the same again. C said that, as a result, appropriate investigations were not carried out and there was an unreasonable delay in diagnosis which affected A's outcome.

The board said that a UTI had been given as a reasonable working diagnosis and that blood and urine tests confirmed this. They considered that A had been treated reasonably in the circumstances.

We took independent medical advice. We found that at the time of their admission, A had non-specific symptoms which were reasonable to diagnose as a UTI. When A deteriorated and their symptoms changed, A was cared for reasonably with an appropriate degree of urgency, and a prompt diagnosis of encephalitis was made. While A suffered a poor outcome, we could not conclude that this was as a result of an unreasonable delay in diagnosis. We did not uphold C's complaint.

Summary

C has felt that they have obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) for some years. C has seen various clinicians at the board about this but does not feel that they received appropriate care or treatment. C complained to the board about their care and treatment over the previous years. C said that a psychologist did not provide reasonable care or treatment, that a community mental health nurse did not provide reasonable care and that a psychiatrist unreasonably diagnosed C with anxiety.

In their responses, the board told C that the psychologist had reviewed their care and treatment. The board outlined the care and treatment C had been offered and had taken up and concluded that C’s care and treatment had been handled reasonably. C was dissatisfied with the board’s response and raised their complaints with our office.

We found that the overall standard of treatment provided to C between the period in question by all of the board staff complained of was of reasonable quality and in line with relevant guidance. We did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

C was diagnosed with pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ (PLCIS, an uncommon condition in which abnormal cells form in the milk glands (lobules) in the breast). Following excision of the carcinoma, a programme of 15 radiotherapy treatments was undertaken by the board to reduce the risk of recurrence. Subsequently, C experienced breathlessness and an increase in phlegm. Clinicians initially felt this may be due to radiation pneumonitis (inflammation of the lung caused by radiation therapy) before a likely diagnosis of cryptogenic organising pneumonia (COP, a rare lung condition) was reached. A consultant oncologist (cancer specialist) told C’s GP that COP was a rare toxicity of breast radiotherapy. C wrote to and met with the consultant oncologist to detail their concern that the fourth fraction of their radiotherapy had not been undertaken accurately. The consultant oncologist investigated the matter but did not consider there were any discrepancies or irregularities regarding C’s positioning for radiotherapy. C complained to the board about these matters. The board’s investigations did not indicate that their actions had been unreasonable and they advised C of this. C remained dissatisfied and brought their complaint to us.

We took independent advice from an appropriately qualified adviser. We found that the board had provided reasonable treatment to C and had taken steps to rectify the poor communication to C before we became involved with the complaint. We found evidence that it was reasonable to conclude that C was advised of alternative treatments to radiotherapy. We concluded that the board responded reasonably to C’s complaint. We did not uphold C’s complaints.

Summary

C complained that the health board delayed in diagnosing and treating their cancer. C was referred by their GP to a number of specialists to investigate symptoms they were experiencing. C complained that the board failed to act in response to investigations, particularly MRI scans instructed by the pain management service, which showed a lesion (abnormal tissue) on their back. C was referred to hospital by their GP around three months following the MRI scans with increasing symptoms, and the decision was taken for C to undergo surgery to remove the lesion. C complained that as a result of the failure to act urgently on the results of the MRI scans, they had to suffer intense pain and the diagnosis and treatment of their cancer was unreasonably delayed.

In responding to the complaint, the board said that two MRI scans performed by the pain management service showed a lesion, but as there had been no change between the scans a follow-up in six months was indicated, with a referral to neurosurgery (specialists in surgery on the nervous system, especially the brain and spinal cord). When C attended hospital around three months later, a subsequent MRI indicated that the lesion had progressed and it was identified as the cause of C's symptoms.

We took independent advice from a medical adviser who considered that whilst the MRI scans carried out identified a cystic lesion, they did not reveal signs which required urgent follow-up and, at that time, a diagnosis attributed to a pre-existing condition was the plausible cause of C's symptoms. Investigations did not reveal any signs that would be considered urgent and, without progression in symptoms experienced by C, the radiology reports alone would not be acted upon. We found that investigations undertaken by the board were reasonable and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C attended Dr Gray's Hospital after experiencing sudden pain in their knee. C said that, on both occasions, they advised hospital staff they had extreme heat and swelling on the front of their leg. C had a history of varicose veins (swollen and enlarged veins that usually occur on the legs and feet) and requested that their leg be scanned on both occasions, but this did not happen.

C later travelled abroad. Whilst abroad, C was diagnosed with a deep-vein thrombosis (DVT, a blood clot in a vein). They underwent emergency surgery and had stent filters inserted to prevent the clots reaching their lungs, heart or brain. C said that they and their family suffered extreme trauma and worry about the expense of being hospitalised abroad and C has suffered mental and physical health issues since returning home.

C complained that the board failed to carry out a reasonable assessment of their leg symptoms during their two hospital attendances.

We took independent advice from a consultant in emergency medicine. We found that C was appropriately reviewed during their hospital attendances. We noted that whilst it was possible that a DVT was present at this point, it was more likely that it developed during C’s long-haul flight. There was no indication during C’s hospital attendances that a scan or x-ray of their legs should have been carried out. We did not uphold C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C was referred to the ophthalmology department (the branch of medicine concerned with disorders and diseases of the eye) by her optician after she became concerned about the vision in her eye. She attended several appointments with a consultant ophthalmologist but was unhappy with the care and treatment provided. In particular, Ms C felt that the consultant did not take her seriously at her initial appointment. She was also unhappy that the treatments given and tests carried out did not give her a definitive diagnosis or improve the vision in her eye.

We took independent advice from a consultant ophthalmologist. We found that the consultant's assessment, management and onward referral for tests were reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.