Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to handle a planning application reasonably. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that, although there had been some minor errors in the information provided by the council to the planning committee, these had not had a material impact on the decisions reached. We found that the council had followed its procedures correctly, and that whilst we recognised that Mr C was concerned and distressed about the handling of the planning application and the proposed development, his disagreement with the professional judgement of the council's planning officers was not evidence of maladministration. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C complained about the service provided by Bridgewater Housing Association (BHA) and the care and repair service they provided when C sought to make alterations and adaptations to their home, which is privately owned. This included changes to their front door and the installation of a ramp. We noted that it is the role of BHA to facilitate repairs. They do not guarantee the quality of the work or assess if the work carried out meets the needs of the client.

We found that BHA carried out a tendering process in accordance with their written procedures. We found BHA communicated with the contractor regarding when work was required to be done.

In relation to the front door the contractor varied the contract without notifying C or BHA in advance. We noted that C had a dispute with the private contractor and that BHA communicated with both parties to attempt to facilitate an agreement between them. In relation to the ramp this was signed off as meeting C's needs by their Health and Social Care Partnership. We considered that it was reasonable for BHA to rely on this information.

We found BHA had reasonably facilitated the works to the door and ramp to the property, in accordance with procedures that they were required to follow, and limited to what they were responsible for. We did not uphold C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained to us in her own right and on behalf of her mother (Mrs A).

Mrs A was visited at home by a carer, who alleged that Ms C assaulted them during their visit. The partnership decided that the adult support and protection (ASP) investigation criteria were met because Mrs A's care package had been put in jeopardy. The partnership decided to activate their ASP procedures. The ASP investigation concluded that Mrs A was not at risk and that no further action was required. Ms C complained that the partnership's decision to carry out an ASP investigation was unreasonable and she raised concerns about how it was carried out.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the partnership's decision to undertake an investigation was reasonable, as they had an obligation to assess if Mrs A was at risk. We also found that it was carried out in a reasonable manner. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

C, who has a disability, attended hospital to have an operation. C was signed-off as medically fit for discharge, however, C did not consider that they could return to their home, which is privately owned. C complained that there was a failure to assess if their home met their needs because adaptations had been carried out which were not suitable. C considered that there was a failure to keep them advised about plans for discharge. C also considered that there had been a failure to assess what support they would require upon discharge. C considered that alternative accommodation should have been provided.

We found that an assessment stated that C was able to access their home following the adaptations carried out. We noted that the partnership had offered to carry out a further assessment on a few occasions, to give C a second opinion, and that C had refused to take part in this. We found reasonable steps had been taken by the partnership to carry out an assessment and offer a second opinion. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

C had refused to return home from hospital, despite the partnership informing C that they were medically fit for discharge and explaining the reasons that C should go home. We considered that C had been advised of the plans to discharge them and that they had been reassured about what process would follow in the event that they were to be discharged. We noted that a discharge meeting would be set up, a plan for discharge made and an assessment of C's ability to manage at home would be carried out. As access to the property was reasonable, and C did not have any personal care needs, we considered that the partnership's position, that C did not require alternative accommodation because they could access their home, to be reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

Mr C contacted the partnership to request local authority funding towards care home costs for his wife (Mrs A). The partnership carried out a New Threshold calculation (calculation that determines an individual's entitlement to funding) for Mrs A, confirmed she was eligible for local authority funding and detailed their contribution to her care home costs. Mr C subsequently requested a review of Mrs A's New Threshold calculation. Mr C remained dissatisfied with the New Threshold calculation carried out. He complained that the partnership had failed to explain their position on Mrs A's financial assessment and as a result he lacked confidence in the figures arrived at by the partnership. He also complained that some of the letters he had received had contained inaccurate information and had misled him in connection with Mrs A's funding.

We found that the partnership had met with Mr C on a number of occasions to explain the New Threshold calculation and had carried out re-calculations in response to further information provided by Mr C. We found no evidence that the partnership had not acted in line with their financial assessment processes and relevant guidance when handling Mrs A's New Threshold calculation and financial assessments. In relation to the letters, the partnership have acknowledged that these could have been worded better and have made improvements as a result. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C's adult child (A) lived in sheltered accommodation managed by the partnership. A had an overnight carer in their flat for a number of years. Technology Enabled Care (TEC) was later installed in A's flat to provide overnight care.

C complained that the partnership made unreasonable changes to A's overnight care provision. We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that the actions taken by the partnership were reasonable. Prior to the change being made the partnership considered C's concerns and responded to them, considered the information available to assess A's overnight needs, undertook appropriate risk assessments to identify risks and took steps to mitigate them where possible. A trial of TEC was undertaken, and at the point where TEC was to become the source of overnight monitoring it was phased in. The partnership also offered a review of the overnight care if A's behaviour changed. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained to us about the practice after she was diagnosed with secondary breast cancer in her lymph nodes. She had been attending the practice with a number of separate symptoms including a drooping right eye, fatigue; pain in her right shoulder, a rasping voice, vomiting and fainting. She did not consider that these symptoms were ever properly considered as a whole, which may have prompted an earlier diagnosis. She was also concerned that there was a failure to appropriately ready her for the diagnosis, claiming she had been repeatedly reassured her symptoms did not point towards a serious diagnosis.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that the symptoms were relatively common and were not suggestive of a cancer diagnosis. Given this, we considered that the practice's communication with Ms C had been reasonable. We did not uphold either of Ms C's complaints.

Summary

C arrived at Ninewells Hospital's emergency department by ambulance. After an initial assessment C was transferred to a mental health unit. C complained about the treatment provided at both locations. We took independent psychiatric advice.

We found that the treatment provided at Ninewells Hospital was reasonable, C was appropriately assessed and managed, with an appropriate referral to psychiatric services and appropriate steps taken to maintain C's safety. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

We found the treatment provided at the mental health unit was also reasonable. A thorough examination of C was undertaken and during C's admission adequate monitoring and care of C was provided. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who had a previous history of repeated sinus infections, attended the day surgery unit at St John's Hospital for planned septoplasty surgery (corrective nose surgery). He was prepared for surgery by a nurse but Mr C was then reviewed by a doctor who decided that surgery was not required at that time and that Mr C could be discharged home with nasal capsules and would be reviewed at a later date. Mr C said that it was unreasonable that the doctor had overruled a previous consultant, who deemed that surgery was required, and that he was prescribed capsules which had not been effective in the past.

We took independent advice from an ear, nose and throat surgeon. We found that it is not unusual for planned surgery to be cancelled on the day of surgery. Clinicians who may have not seen the patient previously routinely review the symptoms reported and may determine that the surgery is cancelled or that alternative surgery should proceed instead. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Miss C attended the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh A&E having cut her lower right leg. The wound was treated with wound closure strips and a dry dressing. Miss C complained that it was not appropriate to treat her wound with strips and that they should have been sutured as she developed an infection and required further treatment. The board explained that wounds on the lower leg take longer to heal, are more prone to infection and it is unlikely suturing would have resulted in a different outcome.

We took independent advice from a medical adviser. We found that the use of wound closure strips can be as effective as sutures in cuts. There was no evidence to suggest that the treatment provided was unreasonable and it would not be possible to determine whether the wound would not have become infected if it had been stitched. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.