Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary
Mrs C complained that doctors were insensitive in the way that they told her husband (Mr C) that he had terminal cancer.

We acknowledged that it must have been extremely distressing for Mr C to receive the news that he had terminal cancer, particularly as this was the only hospital appointment that he attended alone. However, our medical adviser said that it was appropriate to be frank and open in such circumstances. We found no objective evidence that doctors were insensitive in the way that they communicated Mr C's prognosis to him.

Summary
Mr C complained to the practice that his late partner (Ms C) had attended there on numerous occasions between November 2010 and March 2011 with respiratory problems. The practice referred Ms C to hospital for x-ray and to the spirometry clinic (where tests for lung conditions are carried out). Ms C was admitted to hospital in early March 2011 where cancer was diagnosed and she died later that month. Mr C's complaint was that there had been a delay in his partner's diagnosis.

Our investigation found that doctors from the practice had taken Ms C's symptoms seriously and arranged appropriate investigations and hospital referrals in an effort to establish a diagnosis. Independent medical advice that we took concluded that the early differential diagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease was reasonable and that there was no evidence of any 'red flag' symptoms which would have pointed to cancer as a likely diagnosis.

Our clinical adviser also examined the x-ray image which was taken in January 2011 and found that it was appropriately reported as normal. We, therefore, were satisfied that the care and treatment provided to Ms C by the doctors was reasonable.
 

Summary
Mr C complained to the board about the treatment provided to his late partner (Ms C) at a hospital in the board area. Ms C was admitted in early March 2011 and died later that month. Shortly after admission the family were told that Ms C's condition was serious. They were concerned that although in the last year of her life Mrs C had numerous tests and x-rays nobody had noticed that she had two tumours growing in her body. In particular, Mr C wanted to know why an x-ray taken in January 2011 did not ring alarm bells.

Our investigation established, however, that Ms C received appropriate investigations in hospital and that there was no evidence of any delay in her treatment. Our clinical adviser examined the x-ray image which was taken in January 2011 and found that it was appropriately reported as normal.
 

Summary
Mrs C complained to the board about the treatment her late father (Mr A) received at Inverclyde Royal Hospital from the end of January 2011 until his death in early March.

The complaints included that Mr A had received a lack of continuity of care and treatment; poor communication between staff and the family; a general staff failure to recognise and address Mr A's pain; and poor record-keeping. Our clinical adviser examined Mr A's cardiac history and found that the care and treatment that had been provided was appropriate. The investigation also estabished that communication with the family was appropriate, Mr A's pain was recognised and addressed and we found no evidence that the standard of record-keeping was inadequate.
 

Summary
Mr C contacted his dental practice to bring forward an appointment for treatment. He was told by the practice manager that no earlier appointments were available. He asked to speak to a dentist but was told that none were available. The conversation became heated and the manager terminated the call.

Mr C and his wife visited the practice and were met by the practice manager who they claimed was rude and aggressive. They raised a complaint with a dentist but did not feel that he listened to their concerns. During their exchanges with the dentist and the practice manager, their relationship with the practice broke down to the extent that Mr C asked to be removed from the patient register.

Mr C complained about the practice's handling of his request for an earlier appointment and his subsequent complaint. He also complained that the practice manager was rude and aggressive during telephone calls with him. We did not find that the practice failed to deal appropriately with his appointment request or his complaint. Whilst there was corroborating evidence of the comments made by the practice manager, we were unable to conclude that she acted aggressively or rudely toward Mr C or his wife.
 

Summary
Mrs C complained to the practice about the treatment that they provided to her late husband (Mr C). Mr C had attended various GPs at the practice between November 2010 and February 2011 with a persistent cough, breathlessness, loss of appetite and severe weight loss. Mrs C also spoke to the GPs and expressed her fears that Mr C was dying of lung cancer as she had experience of nursing both her mother and mother-in-law through the disease. The GPs told Mr C that he 'definitely did not have cancer'. Mr C was eventually referred to Ninewells Hospital where following various investigations he was diagnosed with lung cancer. He was transferred to a local community hospital where he died two weeks later.

Mrs C complained that the practice's failure to investigate fully her husband's symptoms led to a delayed diagnosis of lung cancer. Our clinical adviser, however, found that the doctors at the practice had carried out appropriate tests in an effort to reach a diagnosis and made appropriate specialist referrals where required. Our adviser found that the initial working diagnosis of lower respiratory tract infection was reasonable and that when the symptoms did not improve specialist hospital referral was instigated which initially indicated that a diagnosis of malignancy was less unlikely. The adviser explained that lymphagitis carcinomatosis is a relatively uncommon presentation of lung cancer and more so in the case of Mr C who was a non-smoker.

Mrs C also complained that the practice failed to take into account her concerns about the seriousness of her husband's condition. However, our investigation found evidence that the doctors had taken on board Mr C's reported symptoms and had noted Mrs C's concerns and did not dismiss them.
 

Summary
Mrs C complained that the clinicians at Ayr Hospital provided inadequate treatment to her late sister (Mrs A) who required cardiac surgery, and that Mrs A should have been transferred to The Golden Jubilee National Hospital for urgent surgery at an earlier date. She also raised issues about poor communication with the family and the way in which the board handled the complaint. After taking advice from one of our medical advisers, we established that Mrs A received appropriate treatment. We also found that the level of communication and complaints handling was adequate.
 

Summary
Mr C was a student on a taught postgraduate course at the university. He complained that teaching hours, timetable and deadlines of assignments were altered from those in the course programme without reasonable communication.

We found from looking at the evidence provided by both Mr C and the university that the course documents made it clear that changes were likely to occur and that, in the main, it was a student's responsibility to regularly check particular sources for information. There was also evidence of reasonable communication with Mr C, by email, about assignments where the dates of these were changed. In addition, the university said it would ensure that information provided to students was clearer in future.

As there was not sufficient evidence to support Mr C's claim, we did not uphold this complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because items of property were confiscated from him as they were not listed on his property card and, therefore, could not be confirmed as belonging to him. Mr C said he was told that the confiscated items would be returned to him after six months if they were not claimed by a rightful owner, but this did not happen.

The prison rules clearly state that no prisoner shall have in his or her possession, or conceal or deposit anywhere within a prison, any property which he or she has not been authorised to possess or keep. It is prison policy for unclaimed confiscated items to be recycled after six months. Having considered the evidence, we were satisfied that the prison followed the proper process when confiscating the items of property.
 

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he believed a member of staff lied when preparing his programme assessment report. The report was prepared to identify whether Mr C had any outstanding offence-focussed work that he needed to complete.

Our investigation confirmed that the prison investigated Mr C's complaint appropriately and provided him with a detailed response. We also reviewed the programme assessment report. The evidence did not support Mr C's complaint that the member of staff lied.