Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment the board provided to their late spouse (A) at University Hospital Crosshouse (UHC). A suffered a heart attack and was taken by ambulance to a hospital in another health board area. Following treatment, A was transferred to UHC, but then suffered what was thought to be a stroke event and died a week later.

C complained about several aspects of A's care, including that staff did not tell them what was happening with A and failed to advise them that A was in a coma. C also said that A's health had improved at the other hospital and they understood that A was being moved to UHC to recuperate before being sent home, but A died shortly after their arrival at UHC.

We took independent advice on the case from two advisers - a consultant cardiologist (a doctor that specialises in diseases and abnormalities of the heart) and from a nurse. We found that the medical records showed staff gave C regular updates about A's condition and tried to be realistic about the likely outcome, while being supportive of C. We considered that there was evidence that staff kept C reasonably updated about A's condition during the admission. However, we welcomed the board's apology that the communication did not meet C's needs; this showed a sensitivity to the responsibility for ongoing learning and improvement to ensure communication is tailored to the needs of individuals and their families. We found that there was a lack of clarity from the other hospital about A's prognosis and future treatment plan at the time of their transfer to UHC, which may have contributed to C's confusion and distress at this time. We included some feedback to the board about this. However, we noted that this did not influence A's care at UHC, following the sudden stroke that they suffered soon after transfer, which was ultimately fatal. We considered that, overall, A's care and treatment at UHC was reasonable and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of their client (A) about the actions of Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) relating to the proposed denotification of a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) of which A was one of the landowners of the site. C's complaints related to a number of issues including SNH's contact with the media and their communication with A.

We found that SNH had discretion in relation to any additional contact with the media they considered appropriate and provided a reasonable explanation in relation to their actions. SNH informally notified landowners of their impending action and formally notified A in writing once formal notification commenced as per their procedure. There was a delay in written notification arriving with A but this was outwith SNH's control. Having considered the information available, we determined SNH's actions to be reasonable and in line with policy and procedure. As such, we did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

C complained about two incidents involving their child (A) and another child at school. C said that child protection procedures should have been followed.

We did not consider that C's complaint was a child protection matter and therefore child protection procedures did not require to be followed. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. However, we considered that the school could have managed the incidents better, particularly in relation to their communication with A so that they felt supported and respected.

C also complained that there was an unreasonable delay in the school advising them of the first incident. We considered that C was told within a reasonable period of time. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

C also complained about a refusal to allow them to take an audio recording of a meeting with the head teacher of the school. Whilst we appreciated why C wanted to record the meeting, we did not uphold this complaint on the basis that the head teacher was entitled to refuse this. We considered that the offer to bring someone to support C to the meeting and the opportunity to comment on a minute of the meeting afterwards to be reasonable.

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf her daughter (Ms A) that Ms A had been unreasonably removed from the council's homeless waiting list for settled accommodation.

After Ms A had been placed on the waiting list, she accepted a private let outwith the council area but did not inform the council of her change in circumstances. Ms A and her family were later sent a provisional offer for settled accommodation, which Ms A accepted, however the council noted in the course of their pre-allocation checks that Ms A had taken up a private let and no longer met the homeless criteria. As a result, the council withdrew the offer and removed Ms A from the homeless waiting list.

We found that Ms A had signed an agreement to inform the council of any changes in circumstances, including a change of address, and she had not told the council that she had moved to a private let outwith the council area. Additionally, we found that in taking up the private let, she no longer met the criteria to be provided settled accommodation by the council and it was reasonable that the council removed her from the waiting list. As a result, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the partnership failed to take account of relevant evidence when reviewing priorities for the provision of healthcare premises in North Ayrshire. He also complained that the partnership rejected his complaint.

We found that, in a report on local health care premises, the partnership referred to various data sources and included sets of data about economic, population and health factors, as well as information about state of premises and whether they were fit for purpose. We concluded that it was for the partnership, not us or Mr C, to interpret and assess the data in order to propose a ranked list of premises developments. Mr C disagreed with their interpretation and assessment, and he had an opinion on what evidence was most relevant; however, this was not evidence of an administrative failing by the partnership.

We also found that the partnership investigated and responded to Mr C's complaint appropriately. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment A had received at Inverclyde Royal Hospital before their death. A was admitted to the hospital where they saw a liaison community psychiatric nurse (CPN) who carried out an assessment. The decision reached was that admission for in-patient psychiatric care was not indicated and that A should re-engage with community services. They were discharged from the hospital that afternoon. A completed suicide on the following day.

We found that whilst the assessment completed by the CPN was not entirely transparent and lacked structure, on balance, it was adequate. The decision not to admit A to hospital was reasonable. It was also reasonable for the CPN to explore A's past and current substance misuse and there was no sense from the records that they did so disproportionately. The CPN also checked that A's case with addiction services was still open and we found that a psychiatrist had both sufficient and current knowledge to make an informed decision on the case. Whilst there was an error in the CPN's assessment letter, there was nothing to suggest that this error made a material difference to the CPN's decision-making. We found that there were no significant errors in A's care and treatment and therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C complained to us about the board, as they held a number of concerns regarding the board's management of their medication for ADHD, pain (they suffer from fibromyalgia), and insomnia. C also considered that the board had failed to take reasonable account of their needs in the way they had communicated with them.

We took independent advice from a consultant psychiatrist. We found that C's medication was appropriate for the management of their diagnosed conditions. We did not consider that there was any evidence of unreasonable communication which failed to take account of C's needs. Therefore, we did not uphold C's complaints.

Summary

C, a support and advocacy worker, complained on behalf of their client (B) whose adult child (A) had developed deep vein thrombosis (a blood clot in a vein) and pulmonary embolism (a blocked blood vessel in the lungs) requiring treatment in hospital. Despite receiving blood thinning medication, A developed further pulmonary embolism. A's medication was revised and arrangements were made for A to be seen as an out-patient. A died after returning home following a later review appointment. B questioned the quality of care A had received from the board.

We took independent advice from a consultant respiratory physician (a doctor who specialises in treating and managing patients with conditions affecting their lungs). We found that A received a good standard of care both as an in-patient and as an out-patient in line with the relevant guidance and good practice. There was no evidence that A's outcome could have been changed had the board acted differently. We did not, therefore, uphold C's complaint

Summary

Mr C was referred for orthotics and fitted with insoles. He attended a follow-up appointment with a private consultant as his symptoms were not improving and was diagnosed with anterior impingement syndrome (compression of the bone or soft tissue). After the consultation Mr C decided surgery was his preferred option. Mr C's GP subsequently referred him to the orthopaedics department (specialists in the treatment of diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system) at Hairmyres Hospital. His referral was refused as consultants considered that he was receiving appropriate first line care already. Mr C was unhappy with his treatment and told us that, had consultants acted on the report of the private consultant, he would have had surgery much earlier and his pain and suffering would not have gone on for so long.

We took independent medical advice from a clinical adviser who is experienced in orthopaedics. We found that Mr C was treated in accordance with guidelines and that conservative treatment was the appropriate response. It is not uncommon for medical professionals to have different views on treatment, but that the board's treatment following the GP's referral was appropriate. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C, an advice and support worker, complained on behalf of their client (A) who had concerns about the treatment which A had received at Raigmore Hospital. A had a kidney stone and was operated on, which resulted in a ureteric stent (a thin tube structure allowing urine to drain into the bladder) being inserted. The stone remained in place and Levofloxacin (an antibiotic) was prescribed and A was discharged from hospital. A then began to suffer from leg pains, attended their GP and was readmitted to hospital after a few days with tendon issues. The stent and the kidney stones were removed and the antibiotic was stopped. A felt that the kidney stone should have been removed at the initial surgery and that Levofloxacin should not have been prescribed as this would have prevented their tendon issues which were as a result of a reaction to the Levofloxacin.

We took independent advice from a consultant urologist (a doctor specialising in the diagnoses and treatment of disorders of the kidneys, ureters, bladder, prostate and male reproductive organs). We found that A received an appropriate standard of care and treatment, but suffered a rare but recognised complication of antibiotic medication. We did not uphold the complaint although we highlighted as feedback that the board may wish to review their antimicrobial guidelines.