Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary
Miss C complained to the board about aspects of the care and treatment that her late father, Mr A, received in hospital. Mr A, who had irreversible chronic obstructive airways disease (COAD), suffered a cardiac arrest at home. He was resuscitated by paramedics and taken to the hospital's intensive care unit. Initially he was on a ventilator to help him breathe, but this was discontinued the day after he was admitted. The same day, Miss C spoke to a doctor who told her that she had spoken to Mr A and that he had said he did not want to be put on a ventilator. The doctor also told Miss C that Mr A's health was too poor for him to benefit from ventilation and that he would not survive. Although initially Mr A had improved, his condition later deteriorated and he died a week after being admitted to hospital. In her complaint, Miss C said the family contested the fact that Mr A's health was too poor for him to have benefitted from ventilation.

We took advice from one of our medical advisers, who said that as an emergency admission, it was appropriate to initially place Mr C an a ventilator until his condition stabilised. He was taken off the ventilator once his condition improved. However, when his condition deteriorated staff had to take into account Mr A's irreversible COAD. We found that the records show that staff took steps to explain the situation to Mr A and decided that further ventilation would not be of benefit to him. We found that the decision not to place Mr A on ventilation was appropriate in view of the poor prognosis, that staff had fully consulted with Mr A in the process and that he was in full agreement.

Summary
Miss C complained that her dentist had removed her from the dental practice's list of patients. However, dentists can do this, as long as they give three months' notice to the patient (unless the patient has shown violence). As the dentist had given adequate notice, there were no grounds for us to uphold the complaint.

Summary
Mr C complained about the way the board handled his request for funding of a course of six episodes of prolotherapy treatment (a treatment involving injections into the affected area, which is believed to stimulate healing). Mr C felt that the treatment would have relieved his back pain. The board refused the request and Mr C appealed against the decision. The appeal panel refused his appeal on the basis that research had shown there was no credible evidence that prolotherapy alone has a role to play in back pain. Mr C complained that the research literature that the panel considered was flawed, and that he had not had the opportunity to make additional presentations to the panel after they considered evidence from a member of board staff.

We found that the board dealt with Mr C's request in an appropriate manner and that the panel gave his request careful consideration in accordance with the guidance. We found no evidence that the decision-making process was flawed.

Summary
Ms C was studying for a degree. There were problems with the course in her final year. Several students, including Ms C, appealed their honours classifications and, because of this, the university carried out an investigation. Ms C's honours classification was upgraded, but she felt it merited a further upgrade and so she appealed again, but the appeal was dismissed. Ms C complained to our office that the university failed to provide her with a reasonable explanation for their decision to upgrade her final results along with those of a number of others on her course.

We found from looking at the evidence that the university's investigation of the problems on the course indicated systemic failings in the frequency and quality of feedback from academic staff to students. The university did not tell Ms C this in their letters about her appeal, and they explained to us that such an explanation would not normally form part of appeal letters. As this was an exceptional situation, we took the view that it would have been helpful if the letters had stated the key outcome of the review about the feedback failings. This might have helped explain to Ms C why there was an apparent disparity between the feedback she received from academic staff and the honours classification she was awarded. We drew this point to the university's attention.

It was clear that Ms C wanted to know what went wrong on the course and the reasons why. However, this was different from an explanation of why the university upgraded her honours classification. The university's academic regulations did not require them to provide an explanation for the decision to award a mark, grade or honours classification. The requirement was that they notify a student in writing of the decision, which they did. The university combined this notification with the outcome of Ms C's first appeal, which was upheld due to material administrative error. This was the ground for appeal that Ms C ticked on the appeal form. Taking account of the university's responsibilities under their academic regulations we were satisfied that, in the circumstances, they did provide Ms C with a reasonable explanation for their decision to upgrade her final results.

Summary
Mrs C attended a hospital accident and emergency unit in 2005 with a suspected deep vein thrombosis (DVT). DVT was not, however, diagnosed and Mrs C was sent home.

In 2011, Mrs C's health deteriorated and an electrocardiogram (a test that measures the electrical activity of the heart) showed that she had a heart abnormality called a left bundle branch block (LBBB).

On reviewing her past medical records Mrs C saw that this was actually diagnosed in 2005 but that no action had been taken. Mrs C is now on numerous medications for angina, heart failure and increased blood pressure. Mrs C complained because she felt that treatment should have been provided in 2005, and that she should have been seen by a heart specialist and had a thorough review of her heart condition.

We found that the finding of LBBB in 2005 was picked up by chance and was unrelated to the matter which was being investigated (which related to pain in Mrs C's leg). Also, at that time, Mrs C was not exhibiting any sign of heart problems.

The guidelines that were in place in 2005 for dealing with patients with cardiac problems have been updated and replaced by new guidelines that include preventative action to reduce the consequence of further cardiac problems for such patients.

We found that the care and treatment provided to Mrs C in 2005 was, therfore, appropriate at the time.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because the prison was not allowing him to participate in offending behaviour programmes. He said that this was unfair. Our enquiries with the prison confirmed that Mr C was unable to participate in offending behaviour programmes because he was appealing his conviction and sentence.

The prison explained that, if a prisoner lodges an appeal against their conviction, it indicates that he does not accept his guilt. There was, therefore, no value in carrying out such programme work with a prisoner who feels he is innocent of the crime he had been convicted of. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he was unhappy that he would be unable to access the Substance Related Offending Behaviour Programme (SROBP) before becoming eligible for consideration to progress to less secure conditions. SROBP is a programme focusing on the relationship between prisoners' substance use and their offending behaviour.

We did not uphold this complaint. Our enquiries with the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) confirmed that Mr C had not been able to access the SROBP earlier because other prisoners' priorities and critical dates were considered to be more significant than his.
The SPS explained that Mr C should not confuse the date when he became eligible for consideration to progress to less secure conditions with the actual date by when he must be in less secure conditions.

Mr C also complained about the internal complaint committee's handling of his complaint. He said the written response did not reflect the discussion that took place at the hearing. On looking at this issue, we found no evidence to support Mr C's claim and we were unable to uphold this part of his complaint.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he said there had been an unreasonable delay in him being able to access the Substance Related Offending Behaviour Programme (SROBP). SROBP is a programme focusing on the relationship between prisoners' substance use and their offending behaviour.

Mr C was a protection prisoner and was unhappy because some mainstream (non-protection) prisoners had participated in the SROBP that was meant for only protection prisoners. He felt he had been overlooked in place of mainstream prisoners.

In investigating Mr C's complaint, we asked the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) why he had not been selected for the last SROBP for protection prisoners. They explained that other prisoners' key dates were more critical than his, therefore, he was not selected.

We also asked whether mainstream prisoners had accessed the SROBP meant for protection prisoners. The SPS provided us with the relevant information and we were satisfied that they had exercised their discretion, as they are entitled to do, in taking the decision to allow mainstream prisoners onto the SROBP with protection prisoners.

In selecting prisoners for programmes, the prison must find a fair way to do this so that prisoners are selected onto programmes depending on their key dates - parole qualifying date, earliest date of liberation etc. In Mr C's case, his dates were not as critical as those prisoners who had participated in the SROBP, and we were satisfied that Mr C was prioritised appropriately.

Summary
In prisons there are paid work opportunities for prisoners in various areas. Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he had been unable to obtain work in prison. He considered that this disadvantaged him financially and affected his prospects for successful resettlement after his sentence.

When we looked at the complaint, we found that the Scottish Prison Service made reasonable attempts to find work for him. As there was no appropriate work opportunity available for Mr C, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, came to Scotland from another authority area. At that time, he had already served more than half of his sentence and was eligible to be considered for parole (early release). Parole was not granted so he was transferred to a maximum security prison. Mr C was not happy with that decision. He felt that he should be in less secure conditions and complained to the Scottish Prison Service (SPS). He said the SPS were wrong to dismiss his behaviour record and courses completed whilst in custody within the other authority area.

In response to his complaint, the SPS explained that before he could progress to less secure conditions, he would need to take part in the generic assessment process and complete any suitable programme work. Mr C had, however, refused to do this.

We cannot question a decision taken by the SPS unless there is evidence of administrative error in the way the decision was taken. The evidence available confirmed that prisoners can only progress to less secure conditions once the SPS are satisfied with their level of risk. In Mr C's case, he was refusing to participate in the process that would allow the SPS to review his risk and needs. Therefore, there was no evidence that SPS had done anything wrong and we did not uphold his complaint.