Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

C complained to the practice about their failure to diagnose that they were at risk of suffering a heart attack when they attended the practice on two occasions. The GPs had diagnosed a chest infection; however, C’s condition deteriorated and they were admitted to hospital where it was discovered they had suffered a heart attack. C felt that the GPs should have diagnosed their heart condition sooner and that if they had then their heart would not have been so damaged.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that the GPs involved in C’s care carried out appropriate assessments and that the symptoms which C presented with were not indicative of cardiac problems. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C was admitted to Stratheden Hospital following an overdose. C’s complaint is in relation to the care and treatment provided during this admission. C said they were left without medication and discharged without a proper follow-up plan.

The board acknowledged that medications were not available when they should have been. They said this was because C’s prescriptions needed to be ordered from the pharmacy and were not stocked on the ward. They said that a senior charge nurse had reminded staff to review prescriptions to ensure they are ordered in time. The board said they provided C with appropriate information about support services.

We took independent advice from a consultant psychiatrist. We noted that it was accepted that there was a delay with providing C with their medication. However, we found that the overall management of C’s condition was reasonable, with effective communication between staff and C documented throughout. As such, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

C was enrolled on a programme at the University of Edinburgh. C complained about the university's response to reports of bullying during their placements. We found that the university took reasonable action to address C's concerns regarding the difficulties they experienced on placement, in line with the relevant university procedures. We did not find evidence that the university failed to follow their own procedures regarding the reports made by C.

C complained that the university unreasonably denied them the opportunity to re-sit a small number of placements. We did not find any evidence of maladministration and procedural failings which would lead us to question the merits of the decisions taken by the university.

C also complained that the university did not reasonably respond to their appeals. We did not find any evidence of maladministration or a procedural failing which would lead us to question the merits of the decisions taken by university in relation to C's appeals. We did not uphold C's complaints.

Summary

C complained on behalf of their adult child (A), who has complex care needs and lives with C, about the care and treatment A received from the partnership.

C said that the partnership failed to carry out a reasonable support needs assessment for A and that they failed to prepare an appropriate outcome-based support plan.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the action taken by the partnership in preparing the support needs assessment and outcome-based support plan was reasonable, and it was in line with relevant guidance and policies. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment provided to their child (A) by the board when A had various ear, nose and throat symptoms. A was admitted to Ninewells Hospital following a number of visits to their GP, and received treatment with steroids, antibiotics and oxygen. A was discharged after two nights with a plan for a follow-up sleep study. C complained that the board had not provided A with appropriate oxygen treatment, and that it was unreasonable for them to be discharged.

We took independent advice from a consultant paediatrician (a medical practitioner specialising in children and their diseases). We found that, overall, the care and treatment provided to A was reasonable, and that there was appropriate monitoring, documentation, and escalation of care. We considered the oxygen treatment and discharging A to be reasonable. We, therefore, did not uphold C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the practice had failed to properly investigate a series of complaints she had made about entries in her and her children's medical records. Mrs C believed the practice's conclusions were unreasonable given the available evidence. Mrs C also complained that the practice failed to communicate appropriately with her.

We took independent advice from an adviser on general practice medicine. We found that the practice had reasonably and appropriately investigated the complaints brought to it by Mrs C and had communicated reasonably with her. Some of the medical record entries that Mrs C objected to were the opinions of the GP following their encounter with her. We considered that it was reasonable for medical records to contain subjective opinion and it was not possible to amend or delete the entries Mrs C was concerned about. In addition, the practice had offered Mrs C the opportunity to place notes in her medical records, indicating that she disagreed with the content or tone of the entries. Mrs C had not responded to these offers. We did not uphold any of Mrs C's complaints.

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment provided to them by Scottish Ambulance Service (SAS) when they called for an ambulance after they had bleeding following the removal of a lesion earlier that day.

We took independent advice from an appropriately qualified adviser. We found that the care and treatment provided to C by SAS was of a reasonable standard. C was given appropriate advice from the call handler, the ambulance was dispatched and arrived with C in a timely manner. We also found that the ambulance crew's assessment of C's wound was reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold C's complaint.

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment their late relative (A) received at the practice. A sought advice from the practice after returning home from a holiday abroad where they had become unwell. C's complaint related to a number of issues; including communication, medication, and scans.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that there were no failings by the medical practice in terms of communication with the family or the time taken to perform scans. In relation to the management of A's medication, we found that the responsibility of stopping and restarting medication lay with the hospital clinicians. We also found that there were many reasons for A's balance and mobility issues, thus, a head scan was not indicated. We concluded that the care and treatment provided by the medical practice was of a reasonable standard. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

C also complained about the practice's handling of their complaint. We found that the medical practice had provided their response to C's complaint to the health board within three weeks of them receiving the complaint and in line with the agreement to issue a coordinated response. However, there was a delay in the health board issuing the response to C for which they apologised for. We concluded that there was no fault by the medical practice and, therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C complained that the board failed to carry out further tests when they became aware of the fact that their partner (A) had polyhydramnios (excess amniotic fluid) during pregnancy before giving birth to their baby (B). B was diagnosed with Noonan Syndrome (a genetic disorder that causes a wide range of features, such as heart abnormalities and unusual facial features) after birth. C considered that, if the board had carried out further tests, this may have led to the detection of Noonan Syndrome prior to the birth of B.

We took independent advice from a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist (a doctor who specialises in the female reproductive system, pregnancy and childbirth). We found that the board's staff followed recognised practices when carrying out ultrasound scans and assessing the unborn child. During the 30th week of A's pregnancy, polyhydramnios was first raised as an issue. At that time it was a mild case and no abnormalities were identified with the foetus. By the 36th week of A's pregnancy, polyhydramnios had increased to a moderate case. We found that, whilst polyhydramnios is a feature of Noonan Syndrome, it can be caused by a number of other factors, and no other features of Noonan Syndrome were present. We found that there was no indication for an amniocentesis (a test offered during pregnancy to check if the baby has a genetic or chromosomal condition) to be carried out. If an amniocentesis had been offered, Noonan Syndrome would not have been identified, unless a specific test for this had been carried out. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the treatment the board provided to him following his surgery for Dupuytren's Contracture (a condition in which one or more fingers become permanently bent in a flexed position). Mr C complained that he had suffered an infection post-operatively which was not appropriately treated.

We took independent advice from a consultant orthopaedic surgeon (a specialist in the treatment of diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system). We found that the board had provided a reasonable standard of treatment to Mr C. He was seen regularly after the operation and no concerns were recorded by clinical staff that Mr C was suffering from a post-operative infection that was clinically significant (required treatment). Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.