Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

C complained about two matters. The first related to whether or not the treatment plan prepared by a dentist employed by the dental practice was clinically necessary. We did not uphold this complaint on the basis that images taken of the teeth and an x-ray showed that the work set out in the treatment plan was required to the teeth as there was decay, part of a filling was missing and part of a tooth was missing. The clinical notes also referred to this.

The second related to a failure to provide C with evidence that the work was clinically necessary when asked to do so. We did not uphold this complaint on the basis that the clinical notes and the images were sent to C by the dental practice. The dentist, who had left the practice subsequently, wrote to C to provide them with information about why the treatment was necessary.

Whilst we did not uphold this complaint we did recognise that communication when dealing with the complaint could have been better and a more coordinated approach between the dentist and the dental practice would have resulted in better complaint handling. We noted the dental practice had already apologised for this and made an offer to C as a good will gesture.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the care her child (Child A) received from the board during their admission for bacterial meningitis (an infection of the protective membranes that surround the brain and spinal cord) was unreasonable. Mrs C said that Child A was not given the full dose of antibiotics and that the day after discharge they had to be re-admitted as the infection had not been cleared. Mrs C also complained that Child A was given an MRI scan using the feed and wrap technique (use of feeding and swaddling to induce natural sleep in infants), which did not work, rather than performing the test under general anaesthetic.

We took independent advice from a consultant paediatrician (a medical practitioner specialising in children and their diseases). We found that, on review of the medical notes, Child A received the stated course of antibiotics, there were no concerns over the timing of the doses, and it was reasonable for Child A to have been discharged initially. We also found that it was reasonable for Child A to have their MRI using the feed and wrap technique in the first instance. As a result, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Mrs C also complained that the handling of her complaint was unreasonable. We were satisfied that the board had followed the NHS Complaints Handling Procedure and as a result, did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment provided to their child (A). A was treated with intravenous immunoglobin (antibodies) because it was suspected they had an immune-related movement disorder. The focus of C's complaint was about the decision to stop this treatment as they considered it was of benefit to A.

During our investigation we noted that the decision to start and stop this treatment was made by a doctor under a different health board. The treatment plan was commenced at the other board and moved to Fife NHS board because it was more convenient for A and their family to attend. We were therefore unable to comment on whether or not it was reasonable to stop this treatment, as the decision was not made by the board subject to the complaint. In relation to the treatment carried out at Fife NHS board, we found that the infusions of immunoglobin were administered by the board in accordance with the plan that was put in place by clinicians under the other board. We did not uphold this complaint.

We provided feedback to the board in relation to their complaints handling. As this complaint focussed on the decisions made about treatment, it would have been helpful to C and this office if this had been clarified at an early stage so that the correct focus of the investigation (a different board) could have been identified earlier.

Summary

Mr C complained about the treatment which he received at the A&E of Borders General Hospital. Mr C said the doctor failed to diagnose that he had suffered a fracture and dislocation of a finger and that the injury was only picked up a few weeks later following further x-rays being taken.

We took independent advice from an A&E consultant. We found that the doctor who saw Mr C at A&E carried out an appropriate assessment. The doctor could not identify a fracture from the x-ray which was taken and arranged a review at a Virtual Fracture Clinic. The injury was also not identified at the clinic. It was only when further x-rays were taken after a couple of weeks that the fracture and dislocation were identified. Mr C had suffered a rare injury and although the correct diagnosis was not reached at A&E, this did not mean that the treatment was not to an appropriate standard. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C complained that their complaints about the bullying of their child had not been addressed by the school they attended. C met with teaching staff to discuss the incidents giving rise to their complaints and subsequently attended a parent-teacher meeting. C complained that school staff had behaved unreasonably towards them, in particular at the parent-teacher meeting.

We explained to C that we could not determine whether bullying took place. We could look at whether the council took reasonable action after C reported their concerns and whether the school and the council followed the correct procedures in response to those concerns.

We found there was a clear record of C’s reports of incidents of bullying. The school has detailed the action it took to investigate the incidents and was able to provide evidence to support its decisions. This was in line with the council’s anti-bullying policy. We considered that the council handled C's complaints about bullying in a reasonable way.

In considering C’s complaint about how staff had behaved, we reviewed the evidence provided by C and the council. We did not find any supporting evidence to conclude that the school’s staff had behaved unreasonably towards C.

We did not uphold C's complaints.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about the handling of a planning application submitted by a neighbour. They complained that the council had failed to allow an additional neighbour notification to enable comments to be submitted on new additional information submitted by the applicant; the council unreasonably circulated a report of handling to the appropriate planning committee which was inaccurate, and that elected members of the committee were provided with misleading information. They also complained that the council failed to adhere to its planning residential amenity protection guidelines, and finally that the council’s communication concerning the planning application was unreasonable.

We took independent planning advice. We found that there had been no failure by the council in not providing an additional notification period as the further information provided by the applicant was not materially different from the information already provided. While we found that the report of handling was of an appropriate standard in this case, the council accepted that the information in the report of handling could have been clearer and had taken action to remind appropriate staff of the need for accuracy in reports of handling.

We also found that there was no evidence that misleading statements were provided to the committee and that there was evidence that amenity protection had been taken into consideration.

Finally, we found no evidence that the communication with Mr and Mrs C in relation to the planning application was unreasonable.

We were satisfied that the planning application had been dealt with appropriately and in accordance with relevant statutory and council processes and procedures.

Therefore, we did not uphold Mr and Mrs C's complaints.

Summary

Ms C complained on behalf of her father (Mr A) that the council unreasonably issued Mr A with a third warning under the council’s anti-social behaviour policy following an altercation between Mr A and his neighbour. Mr A’s neighbour brought an anti-social behaviour complaint against Mr A, which was corroborated by an audio recording taken during the altercation.

Ms C complained that the council’s handling of the anti-social behaviour complaint against Mr A was unreasonable as they went straight to a third warning and should not have relied on the recording from the neighbour as evidence when investigating the neighbour’s complaint. We found that the council’s anti-social behaviour policy allows for escalation directly to a third warning, bypassing first and second warnings, in cases where an adult is involved in serious anti-social behaviour. We found that the council’s handling of the anti-social complaint made against Mr A was in line with their anti-social behaviour policy and as such did not uphold this part of the complaint.

Ms C also complained that Mr A was inappropriately recorded by a council officer and was only made aware when it was referenced by the council in their complaint correspondence. We were unable to find, on the basis of the information and evidence available, that the recording was inappropriate and as such did not uphold this part of the complaint.

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment they received from A&E of St John's Hospital. C has a history of painful skin conditions requiring hospitalisation. C presented at A&E and was triaged by a nurse. The nurse carried out an assessment of C’s condition and discussed it with the a doctor. C was referred to the out-of-hours GP service. C said that they should have been examined by a doctor in light of their symptoms and previous history.

We took independent advice from a senior emergency nurse practitioner. We found that C’s medical history was considered and observations of their temperature, heart rate and blood oxygen were recorded. The notes did not contain details of the physical examination nor the discussion with the doctor. The out-of-hours GP that C was referred to did not refer them back to the doctor, as they could have done, if they thought the referral was not appropriate. We concluded that C had received a reasonable standard of care and treatment and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Following open surgery, Miss C’s abdomen was closed. Miss C was unhappy with the stitching of her abdomen as it had a ‘dog eared’ appearance at one end. Miss C considered that the stitching was inadequate and she should have been given corrective surgery. As the board did not consider that this was necessary at the time, Miss C proceeded to have private surgery to change the appearance of the scar.

We took independent advice form a plastic surgeon. We found that the closure of the surgical wound was achieved by an acceptable technique using appropriate materials. We found the stitching was of a reasonable standard. After several months, there was a small ‘dog ear’ at the end of the scar. We found that the scar was immature at this stage and that it was reasonable to state that it should be allowed to heal, rather than performing corrective surgery at that time. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C, who has power of attorney for her mother (Mrs A) complained about the treatment provided to Mrs A at the eye clinic at Wishaw General Hospital. Mrs C had been referred from her optician with symptoms of distortion in her right eye which had been present for two months. An Optical Coherence Tomography diagnostic test (a non-invasive imaging test which uses light waves to take pictures of the retina) was performed and the result was subsequently reviewed by a consultant ophthalmologist (a specialist in the branch of medicine concerned with the study and treatment of disorders and diseases of the eye). The consultant reviewed the test results and phoned Mrs A to advise her that she had Age Related Macular Degeneration (ARMD, eye disease which can lead to severe loss of vision) and that due to previous scarring, injections would not improve the vision in her right eye. Mrs A’s obtained a second opinion privately. The private opinion was that Mrs A required an injection which would stabilise her condition. Mrs C complained that the consultant relayed the results of the diagnostic test over the phone to Mrs A without seeing her and that as a result she had to obtain a private opinion.

We took independent advice from an ophthalmologist. We found that it was reasonable that the consultant had diagnosed that Mrs A had advanced ARMD which was unlikely to improve with injections and that it was appropriate for the consultant to have called Mrs A with the result and to arrange a follow-up at the clinic. We did not uphold the complaint.