Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary
Mrs C fractured her right leg and was admitted to hospital for treatment. She was reviewed several times over a number of months. Mrs C complained that the care and treatment provided by the board was not reasonable. In particular, she said she was told by a consultant at one particular clinic that her leg was okay, and she should exercise it as much as possible. Mrs C was unhappy that she was given this advice without an x-ray being taken.

We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. We found from looking at the medical records and taking advice from our medical advisers that x-rays from before and after the clinic appointment showed that the broken leg was in the process of healing. Our adviser said it was appropriate that Mrs C was told to move her leg, as that was a process known as dynamisation, which could be helpful in establishing a firm union of the broken bones. Overall, the adviser said that the care and treatment provided to Mrs C was reasonable. It took account of her underlying medical conditions and physical situation, and her treatment followed an appropriate course.

Although, therefore, we did not make any specific recommendations to the board, we did point out that they might wish to consider how staff should communicate medical terms to patients in plain language, such as the difference between the 'clinical healing' of a fracture, and 'healing'.

Summary
Ms C complained that her GP had withdrawn prescription milk for two of her three children who have allergy-related eczema (skin inflammation).

We found that, following advice from the health board, the practice reviewed their prescribing policy for milk powder. At this time one of Ms C's children was being prescribed the powder. The practice told us that they did not withdraw the prescription, but did change it from an automatic repeat prescription to one that has to be approved by a GP each time. They were concerned that if they did not do that the automatic repeat prescription system might mean that the milk powder was over-prescribed and the child's condition might not be regularly monitored.

Our investigation found that prescriptions for milk powder were never stopped and no prescription request was ever refused. The prescribing was reviewed and then monitored and our view was that, in the circumstances and on the evidence available to us, this was appropriate.

Summary
When Mr C's mother died in hospital, he made arrangements with a funeral home to have her body collected and prepared for cremation.

Mr C complained that his mother's body was not released by the hospital until late afternoon two days later. He was particularly upset because he had been told that all the necessary paperwork was completed on the afternoon of the day she died. Our investigation confirmed that, although there was a slight delay in the paperwork reaching mortuary staff, this was due to the internal set up of the hospital and could not be avoided. We also found evidence, confirmed by the funeral home, that Mr C's mother's body was actually released the day after she died. Although we appreciated that this was a distressing time for Mr C and his family, we found that there was no unreasonable delay, and did not uphold the complaint.

Mr C also complained that mortuary staff failed to co-operate with the funeral home and that one of them was abusive to a trainee funeral director. The board denied that anyone was abusive or that staff had failed to co-operate, although they confirmed that there was an initial misunderstanding about whether the relevant paperwork was complete. We contacted the funeral home, who confirmed that they did not consider that mortuary staff been abusive or obstructive. They agreed that there was a delay in arranging to collect Mr C's mother's body, but that this was because of the slight delay in the paperwork reaching mortuary staff.

Finally, Mr C complained that he and his family were not given a reasonable and clear explanation as to why there had been delay in releasing his mother's body. The board provided us with copies of the correspondence they had sent to Mr C and details of their investigation into his complaint. The evidence confirmed that Mr C's initial complaint was about a delay in providing the death certificate and other matters concerning his mother's final stay in hospital.

These were all addressed by the board in their relevant response to Mr C. After receiving this letter, Mr C then raised the issue of the delay in releasing his mother's body and the allegations of abusive attitude. The board produced evidence to show that they had also responded to this. We were satisfied that the board provided Mr C with reasonable and clear explanations of all of these concerns.

Summary
Mr C complained that the board unreasonably failed to consult him when they decided to put a 'do not resuscitate' order in place for his late mother. Mr C was unhappy about how the board had implemented the national policy on decisions regarding resuscitation.

We took advice from our medical adviser about Mr C's concerns. The adviser said that the policy is intended to prevent inappropriate or futile attempts at resuscitation, which may cause distress to the patient and their families. The policy also outlines the circumstances in which healthcare professionals are not required to discuss the order with a relative or carer. This is when the patient's doctor believes that resuscitation would be unsuccessful and, therefore, should not be attempted.

On looking at this case, we found that the board implemented the policy properly because one of the doctors caring for Mr C's mother had decided that resuscitation would be inappropriate because of her medical condition and frailty at the time.

Summary
Mr C's son failed the essay component of his Higher history exam as the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) deemed the title of his essay invalid. Mr C was unhappy as the school had advised his son on the title, and the school remained of the view that it was valid. Because of the difference of opinion between the SQA and the school, Mr C complained that the SQA failed to have adequate processes in place for communicating their guidelines to schools.

In responding to our enquiries, the SQA confirmed that they have processes in place for communicating their guidance. This includes detailed information on their website, annual update letters to schools and the availability of bespoke training services. In response to Mr C's concerns that there was no real-time validation process in place for essay titles, the SQA said that, due to the high number of candidates presenting to them, this was neither practical nor appropriate. We considered this reasonable and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, submitted a complaint to the prison governor using a prisoner complaint form (PCF2). This is the form that prisoners should use when they want to complain about an issue that is exceptionally sensitive or serious. In responding to Mr C's complaint, the governor told him that his complaint was not appropriate to a PCF2.

Mr C told us that he felt that the governor failed to consider his complaint appropriately. We reviewed the prison rules and complaints handling guidance that was available to prisoners and staff. We also reviewed the complaint Mr C raised on the PCF2. We did not agree that Mr C's complaint was exceptionally sensitive or serious.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he was considered to meet the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)’s criteria for being moved from his existing prison to a new prison. This was because the postcode of the home address at which he was registered was one of those which determined a move to the new prison. Mr C did not wish to move because his partner had moved to be closer to his existing prison and because they wished to start a new life in that area on his release. He, therefore, wanted his registered home address to be changed to his partner's new address in the local area. He considered that would mean he would probably not meet the criteria for moving to the new prison.

However, we found that in the case of long-term prisoners such as Mr C, it is not simply a matter of wishing to change the registered home address. Social work staff in the registered home area and the proposed new area need to discuss and agree such a move first. Examples of what they take into account in such cases are whether the proposed new address is suitable and whether social work staff in the proposed area would accept responsibility for supervision etc on the prisoner's release.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. The SPS had correctly explained the situation about the change of address. We advised him that he would need to go through the above process to see whether it could be changed, although, even if it was changed, there was no guarantee that he would be able to stay at his existing prison. In the meantime, the SPS would be acting within their prisoner allocation policy in relation to the new prison by moving him there.

Summary
Mr C's cell was searched by prison staff. Mr C said staff emptied his dark and light washing out of his laundry tubs and put the wet clothing into the sink in his cell. Because of that, Mr C said his light clothing was dyed by the dark clothing. The prison did not compensate Mr C for this, because the clothing was not available to back up his claim. Mr C complained to us because he said that, at the time of reporting the matter, staff unreasonably failed to ask to see his damaged clothing. Mr C said he disposed of the clothing on the day it was damaged.

When Mr C reported the matter to staff, they provided him with a claim form. When we investigated Mr C's complaint that staff did not ask to see the damaged items at the time he reported the matter, we did not agree with Mr C that this was unreasonable. Our view was that staff appropriately provided Mr C with a claim form and that he should have held onto his damaged clothing as evidence for his claim until an appropriate member of staff - someone dealing with his complaint or claim about the matter - asked to see the items. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about the decision taken by the prison to remove him from the Open Estate and return him to closed conditions. Mr C said he had not done anything wrong and felt the prison's decision was unfair.

Our enquiries confirmed that Mr C was returned to closed conditions on a non-punitive basis. The prison confirmed that, at that time of returning Mr C to closed conditions, he was part of ongoing police enquiries. The prison decided to return Mr C to closed conditions until the police investigations were completed. This was a decision the prison were entitled to take and was in line with relevant practice and guidance.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he did not want to be located in a prison or a regime with sex offenders (which his prison was). He said he did not need to be in that prison and it was unfair to locate him there. Mr C said he wanted to be transferred to a mainstream prison. Because of Mr C's offence, however, he could not be located with other mainstream prisoners.

We found that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) have identified individual prison establishments that are responsible for the management of certain categories of prisoners. In Mr C's case, the SPS appropriately located him in the prison that were responsible for managing prisoners of his category.