Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

C complained that the board had unreasonably stopped their medication in prison. We took advice on the complaint from a medical adviser. The medication had been stopped after a check had been carried out and it had been found that some of C's medication was missing. We found that it had been reasonable to stop the medication and that the care provided to C had been reasonable. Medical staff had acknowledged C's mental health conditions and had directed them to engage with the mental health team. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the treatment which he received at the Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) Department at Queen Margaret Hospital. He had been referred by his GP for further investigation of hearing loss. Mr C said that he also had discharge from his ears. He said that the consultant had told him to leave his ears alone as they were fine and did not prescribe any drops or medication. Mr C then attended his GP later that day and a swab was taken and he was prescribed capsules and cream until the results were known. The swab result confirmed an infection and antibiotics were prescribed. Mr C felt that the consultant had dismissed his concerns about the discharge from his ears.

We took independent advice from an ENT consultant. We found that the consultant in the ENT Department had carried out an appropriate examination to establish the cause of Mr C's hearing loss. It was also not unreasonable that the consultant had determined Mr C had caused trauma to his ear canals by using cotton buds and gave advice to stop using them and to wait to see if the inflammation settled in due course. At that time it was not appropriate to issue antibiotics. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained about a number of aspects of the care and treatment her mother (Mrs A) received at Victoria Hospital.

We took independent medical advice from three advisers – a consultant radiologist (a doctor who specialises in diagnosing and treating disease and injury through the use of medical imaging techniques such as x-rays and other scans), a consultant gynaecologist (a doctor who specialises in the female reproductive system) and a consultant colorectal surgeon (a surgeon who specialises in conditions in the colon, rectum or anus).

Miss C said that a radiologist failed to identify the thickened area in part of her mother's bowel on a CT scan. We found that an opportunity was missed at the time of the reporting of Mrs A's CT scan to identify a tumour in this area, in addition to making the new diagnosis of an ovarian tumour. However, given the limited sensitivity and specificity of unprepared CT scan for bowel tumours, we consider this not to be unreasonable.

Miss C complained that there was a delay in Mrs A's hysterectomy (surgical removal of the uterus) taking place which she said was due to the gynaecologist's leave delaying Mrs A's case being discussed at the multi-disciplinary team meeting. We found that Mrs A was referred for her case to be discussed at the next gynaecology multi-disciplinary team meeting the day after she was admitted to hospital. This was then processed in accordance with the department's normal procedures and Mrs A's case was discussed at the next available multi-disciplinary team meeting. We considered that the consultant gynaecologist's leave was not relevant to Mrs A's care and did not delay it in any way.

Miss C said that following the results of Mrs A's CT scan and the suspicion of cancer, the board should have carried out Mrs A's colonoscopy (examination of the bowel with a camera on a flexible tube) and PET scan while she was still in hospital. We found that Mrs A's colonoscopy was carried out within appropriate timescales, taking into consideration the risks from her previous surgery, her potential pain/discomfort and the likely success of the procedure. We found that Mrs A's PET scan was also carried out within a reasonable time, allowing for tissue healing and resolution of infection to take place following Mrs A's surgery, and in order to produce meaningful results to assist clinical decision-making and patient management. The timescales for these procedures would have had no impact on the treatment provided.

We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

C complained that the care and treatment they received at Borders General Hospital was unreasonable, including that they should not have been admitted; that they were not advised of the side effects of their medication; and that staff did not adequately explain what the medication was to treat.

We took independent advice from an adviser qualified in psychiatry. We found that it was appropriate for C to be admitted to hospital for assessment and treatment. While we found that there was no evidence of a specific discussion with C regarding the potential side-effects of their medication, we considered that the board's acknowledgement and apology for this in their letter to C to be a reasonable response. We found that, overall, there was good evidence of engagement and dialogue with C regarding their treatment plan and medication, and that the board's prescribing and administering of medication was reasonable. As a result, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C attended hospital for a coronary angiogram (a test to find out if a person has any problems with the blood vessels that supply the heart muscle with oxygen and how well the pumping chambers and valves in the heart are working).

Following the procedure, Mrs C was left feeling pain in her right leg and described her right foot as feeling frozen. A procedure was carried out to try and alleviate Mrs C's symptoms but she felt no improvement. Mrs C complained that the angiogram was not carried out to an appropriate standard. In responding to Mrs C's complaint, the board apologised but explained that she appeared to have suffered known complications of the procedure.

We took independent advice from a consultant cardiologist (a specialist that deals with diseases and abnormalities of the heart). We found that Mrs C's procedure was carried out to an appropriate standard. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that his pain medication had been stopped and said that he suffered significant pain as a result.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that the decision to stop Mr C's pain medication was reasonable and he was reasonably followed up with, and offered appropriate alternatives, for his pain. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained to us that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had unreasonably stopped her visits with a family member who was also in prison. The Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011 state that a prisoner is only entitled to receive a visit from another prisoner in exceptional circumstances. We found that the decision to stop the visits was a decision that the SPS were entitled to take and there was no evidence that they did not follow the correct process. Under our legislation, we cannot change or question a decision that has been made properly. We did not identify any failings by the SPS and we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that, prior to her parents accepting the offer of a tenancy at a residential accommodation run on behalf of the council, they were not adequately informed of housing support charges which were payable to the council, separate to the rent and service charges for the accommodation. Mrs C's position was that, if they had been made aware of these charges, her parents would never have accepted the tenancy given the level of cost. The council investigated and said that the potential for charges had been discussed and Mrs C and her parents were advised to seek advice regarding liability and any help with covering the costs. Whilst the council accepted that their communication of the charges and the level of the charges could have been clearer, they concluded that the offer letter issued to Mrs C and her parents was clear in highlighting additional charges were applicable. Mrs C was dissatisfied with the response and brought her complaint to us.

We found that the council could have recorded more clearly the information provided and the extent of the discussion regarding charges. The council provided evidence of the changes they had made to the process, where prospective tenants are now provided with written documentation regarding the full extent of charges and asked to sign a disclaimer confirming this has been received. Whilst the communications could have been clearer, on the basis that the offer letter clearly highlighted the potential for additional charges and referenced information provided with the offer, this was sufficient notice for Mrs C and her parents to make further enquiries to establish the extent of their liability for charges. On this basis, we considered that the council had done enough to make Mrs C and her parents aware. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council failed to respond reasonably to reports that her child (Child A) was being bullied at school. We found that the council's bullying policy and guidance does not oblige the school to take specific actions in relation to pupils. It obliges them to take some action, based on the individual circumstances of the reported incident(s). The council have the discretion to decide what action they choose to take, whether to inform parents/carers, whether to liaise with other agencies and whether to implement wider school interventions. Having reviewed the action taken by the council, we were satisfied that they acted in accordance with their policy and guidance on bullying. We did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably acted in contravention of the title deeds of his property, that they had unfairly discriminated against him and his family and that they had failed to investigate his complaints over six months.

We found that the council had taken reasonable steps to resolve a boundary dispute between Mr C as a property owner and his neighbour, who was a council tenant. We could not determine whether the council had contravened the council deeds as this is not a matter we can consider. We found that council staff had not treated Mr C or his family unfairly, although we recognised that he and members of his family had found dealing with council staff distressing at times. We also found that the council had responded reasonably to Mr C's complaints with evidence they had followed their procedures correctly. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.