Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment provided to them by the board when they presented with a suspected ectopic pregnancy (a pregnancy in which the fetus develops outside the uterus, typically in a fallopian tube). C’s main concern was that they were not scanned on arrival at the hospital as it was outwith scanning hours. C ultimately had surgery to remove the ectopic pregnancy and a fallopian (tubes along which eggs travel from the ovaries to the uterus). C was concerned that had a scan occurred at an earlier point, it may have resulted in a better outcome.

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 C was triaged and transferred within a reasonable timescale on arrival to the hospital and that their management was appropriate in the context of being seen outwith the working hours of the early pregnancy assessment scanning service. We did not uphold C’s complaint.

Summary

Mrs C, an advice and support worker, complained to the board on behalf of her client (Mr A) about treatment which Mr A received at Raigmore Hospital. Mr A was diagnosed with bowel cancer following a positive bowel screen and endoscopy. Mr A underwent surgery to remove the tumour. Initially, keyhole surgery was planned but during the procedure the surgeon was unable to locate the tumour and the operation was changed to full surgery. Mr A developed an infection in his abdomen following the surgery and had to be taken back to theatre. Mr A remained in hospital for a number of weeks and was subsequently discharged home with a stoma and wound bag. Mr A wished to know what went wrong with his care and treatment.

We took independent advice from a consultant surgeon. We found that there were no concerns about the standard of treatment which Mr A received. Initially, it was appropriate to consider keyhole surgery based on the scan results but when the surgery commenced it was noticed that the tumour was in a different position. It was then appropriate to proceed to open surgery, which was completed appropriately with no issues. However, Mr A subsequently developed an infection, which is recognised complication of surgery rather than an indication that the surgery was not performed appropriately. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C complained that the board has been unable to provide them with dentures that fit and function. They said that their ill-fitting and ill-functioning dentures have had a significant impact on them and affected many aspects of their life. C felt that staff have not listened to their concerns or treated them appropriately. C also advised that they consider that they require dental implant treatment to assist with denture use.

The board said that C has had intensive support over a number of years regarding their denture use and has exhausted treatment options and assistance within the secondary care setting. They confirmed that C’s concerns have been reviewed by consultants and implants are not an essential requirement of being able to retain dentures. The denture technique which has been used should make adaption to wearing dentures easier for C and whilst it is recognised that this can be challenging initially, persistence is required for success. Furthermore, the board advised that C does not meet the criteria for dental implant treatment.

We took independent advice from a dental adviser. We found that C’s dental records show that consultants at the board had made a lot of effort in providing several sets of dentures to C and there were no other treatment options that the board should have considered or offered. Therefore, it was reasonable for the board to assert that they have exhausted treatment options and assistance in relation to this matter within the secondary care setting. As such, we did not uphold the complaint.

However, we recognised that there had been some concerns regarding communication and provided feedback to the board for future learning and improvement.

Summary

Mr C, an advocacy worker, complained to us on behalf of his client (Mrs B) about the care and treatment the board provided to Mrs B's son (Mr A). Mr A was a patient at a clinic within the board area, when he experienced what appeared to be a seizure. Mr C complained about how the board responded to this, and in particular, that they delayed in taking action and failed to recognise the seriousness of Mr A's condition.

We took independent advice from both an adviser in general medicine and in psychiatry. We found that Mr A's clinical presentation did not suggest it was an emergency situation or that he was at serious risk. We found that the duty doctor assessed Mr A within a reasonable timeframe and managed his condition appropriately. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment provided by the board’s Children and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) in respect of their child (A). After a number of referrals, A attended an initial appointment with CAMHS. This was due to A’s challenging behaviour. The outcome of this assessment was that A would be further assessed before a conclusion was reached on how to progress.

Between this initial assessment and the point C made their complaint, CAMHS engaged with C and A in a variety of ways. A left the family home and moved in with their grandparent. C felt that CAMHS did not provide the help that they and A needed during this time. In C's view, they had been involved with CAMHS for years but nothing productive had been done. Overall, C felt CAMHS failed to provide appropriate care and treatment for A.

We took independent advice from a consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist. We found that overall care and treatment provided by CAMHS was reasonable and in line with relevant guidance for this area. We concluded that the actions taken by CAMHS was reasonable and based on an appropriate consideration of the evidence and A’s presentation. We identified that there were some areas where greater clarity in relation to specialist terms may have been helpful and that there was uncertainty around whether the contents of a risk assessment should have been shared with C. However, we did not consider this to mean that the overall care and treatment provided to A was unreasonable. We did not uphold C’s complaint.

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment they received from the board. C said that a ruptured Achilles tendon (the band of tissue that connects calf muscles at the back of the lower leg to the heel bone) was not identified in a timely way.

We took independent advice from an advanced nurse practitioner and from a consultant physiotherapist. We found that the care and treatment provided to C was consistent with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance on when to suspect an Achilles tendon rupture, and with the board’s own pathway. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

C also complained about the way the board handled their complaint. We did not find any failings regarding the way the board handled C’s complaint. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.

Summary

C complained that Clear Business Water (CBW) had failed to bill their organisation accurately. C said that consequently they could not be certain that the bills were for properties that they were responsible for. C said that previously they had only had to supply leases to CBW and they had not had to provide information on the start or end of tenancies, or contact details for the tenants.

We found that CBW had provided a list of all the accounts they held for C's organisation and they had provided the Scottish Assessor's Association which corresponded to each account. It was, therefore, possible for C's organisation to ascertain which account was for which property. In addition, it was a requirement of the relevant legislation that the owner of a property provide the licensed provider with details of occupancy. We found that CBW were acting reasonably when billing C's organisation and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

A number of years ago, Mr C bought a new build property from a housing developer. Mr C had work done to his property and the structural steel beams were exposed. Mr C was concerned that they did not have adequate fire protection and that the construction differed from the plans approved by the council.

Mr C complained that the council had failed to meet their obligations under the relevant building standards regulations by issuing a completion certificate for his property. Mr C also complained that the council failed to handle his concerns about the safety of his property in a reasonable manner.

We took independent advice from a building standards adviser. We found that it was appropriate that the council issued a completion certificate, as they took reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that the mandatory building standards had been met. We also found that the council responded to Mr C's concerns about the safety of his property in a reasonable manner by providing technically detailed and competent information. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C was the owner of a property which included a parking space noted in the title deeds. Subsequently, Mr C installed a collapsible parking pole to prevent others parking in the space. The council issued a notice to Mr C requiring that he remove the parking pole. The council advised Mr C that the road had been adopted as a 'public road', which meant control of the road rested with the council. Mr C disputed the council's position and pointed towards the council's inability to provide a complete copy of a technical drawing which accompanied a road construction consent form. He considered that this meant that the council could not demonstrate that the parking space was part of the public road.

Mr C complained about the council's decision to require him to remove the parking pole. We found that the council has discretionary power to require removal of something placed in a public road causing obstruction. Mr C had not been granted consent in writing to install a parking pole in the parking space he owned. We found no maladministration in relation to the council's decision-making in this matter. We did not uphold this complaint.

Mr C also complained about the council's investigation into a missing technical drawing. We found that a black and white copy of the drawing was available and this had evidentiary value in the council confirming which areas were originally intended to form part of the adopted road. We also found that a separate document consisted in the main record for delineating adopted areas. We were satisfied that the steps taken by the council to search for the document were reasonable. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to produce accurate reports for various planning applications. He also believed that officers had made mistakes whilst exercising their delegated authority. Mr C was also concerned the council had not followed the correct procedures for their planning committee. He said that the council's response to his complaint had been based on a report prepared by a firm of lawyers which had not responded to all the issues he had raised, or recognised matters which Mr C considered were an established matter of fact.

We took independent planning advice. We found that the council's approach had been confusing at times and was poorly worded. We noted that this had led to delays in the planning process; however, it had not materially affected the decision reached by the planning committee. We found that although there was disagreement between some of the council officers consulted and the planning officers who had reached the delegated decisions, the decisions themselves represented the reasonable exercising of professional judgement by the planning officers.

We also found that there was no maladministration in the planning committee's adherence to the council's Standing Orders and Scheme of Administration. However, we did note that the documents were confusing. The council had recognised the wording of the Scheme of Administration around site visits and voting was unclear. They had already agreed to take steps to address this.

We also found that the council had responded appropriately to Mr C's complaints by commissioning an investigation by an external law firm. Although this had not answered each point raised by Mr C, we found that it had provided a reasonable response, which had addressed his underlying concerns. We did not, therefore, uphold any of Mr C's complaints.