Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mrs C complained that there was a failure by the council to thoroughly investigate incidents involving her child (Child A) at their primary school. She outlined four separate incidents which she felt had not been investigated appropriately and felt that the council's complaint investigation was biased towards the school.

We found that a thorough investigation was carried out into each incident. We also considered that the council's complaint investigation into Mrs C's concerns was detailed and appropriate. We did not uphold the complaint. However, we suggested as feedback to the council that they may wish to consider whether having a policy or guidance regarding how incidents in school should be investigated and/or recorded would be of help to staff to ensure consistency within and across schools in their area.

Summary

Ms C complained that the partnership unreasonably carried out two welfare checks on her and her children. She further complained that they had unreasonably recorded that she had taken the children without disclosing their location to the children's school and that they had been documented as missing. Ms C also considered the partnership had failed to take her concerns about reported domestic abuse seriously.

We found that the social work department had a duty to satisfy themselves that the children were safe and well in accordance with legislation. We also found that it was reasonable for the social work department to document that the children were missing until the address they had been given was checked by the police. Finally, we found that the steps taken by the social work department in checking Ms C and her children were safe, after they had left the family home, indicated they had taken concerns about Ms C and her children's welfare seriously. We did not uphold Ms C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the partnership failed to take reasonable action regarding the installation of a ramp at his home, failed to provide him with reasonable support and failed to appoint him with a reasonable Self-Directed Support (SDS) budget to cover his needs.

We took independent advice from an occupational therapist and a social worker. We found that the partnership acted reasonably regarding the installation of the ramp at Mr C's home and that there was a reasonable level of communication with him about the installation of the ramp and the necessary planning approval required. We also considered that the partnership provided Mr C with reasonable support and the SDS budgets awarded to Mr C were reasonable.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained to the partnership about their response to adult support and protection concerns they raised in respect of their daughter (Ms A) who has additional needs and lives independently with support from a care provider. Mr and Mrs C said that they raised a number of concerns that Ms A was being financially abused and negatively influenced. The partnership said they considered that all reports and concerns raised were responded to and that they followed their Adult Support and Protection procedures correctly.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that there was adequate evidence that demonstrated that the partnership took the appropriate action in response to the concerns raised about Ms A. We identified that appropriate support was provided to Ms A and that the appropriate agencies were contacted to ensure that Ms A was properly supported. As we found no evidence that the partnership failed to respond appropriately to the adult support and protection concerns raised in respect of Ms A, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way NHS 24 managed a number of phone calls which he made to them reporting that he felt that he had something stuck in his throat. Mr C said that NHS 24 staff had initially referred him to the out-of-hours service where he spoke to a GP and was given advice to drink fizzy drinks. Mr C then contacted NHS 24 again as the problem had not resolved and subsequently an ambulance was despatched to take him to hospital. Mr C felt that NHS 24 staff failed to take his concerns seriously.

We took independent professional advice from an experienced nurse. We found that NHS 24 staff had recorded Mr C's symptoms appropriately and that his breathing was not compromised and initially made a referral that Mr C should be assessed by an out-of-hours service GP. When Mr C made further contact as his condition had not resolved, he stated that he felt he was choking and therefore arrangements were made for an ambulance to attend. We found that it was appropriate for NHS 24 staff to have referred Mr C to the other organisations in view of his symptoms reported during the telephone calls. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C's complained about the care and treatment provided by the board to her husband (Mr A) over several of years, in a number of respects. Mrs C said that this had an adverse effect on the care provided to Mr A and, as a result, his mental health had suffered.

We took independent advice from an adviser who specialises in psychiatry. We found that the standard of care and provision of treatment was reasonable in all respects and we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Mrs C was also concerned about the way the board had handled her complaint. We found that the board's complaint response reflected the findings of their investigation and was reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us on behalf of his late father (Mr A) who was diagnosed with and subsequently died as a result of septic arthritis (a serious type of joint infection). Mr C complained that the practice failed to provide reasonable care and treatment in relation to Mr A's shoulder pain, including providing phone consultations rather than face-to-face assessments and that the practice did not refer Mr A for x-ray or to orthopaedics (specialism that deals with diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system). Mr C considered that this had caused delays with Mr A being diagnosed with joint sepsis.

We found that the practice's consultations and care and treatment that Mr A received were reasonable, including referring Mr A to physiotherapy. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that she had not been provided with appropriate treatment at a dental hopsital. Mrs C said that she had been suffering from severe pain for an extended period, due to a poorly fitting denture.

We took independent advice from a dental advisor. We found that Mrs C had been reviewed appropriately and when she had expressed concerns, her care and treatment had been assessed by a number of different specialists. Mrs C had been treated reasonably and appropriately.

Mrs C also complained that a referral to a specialist at a different health board had been cancelled by Tayside NHS board. Mrs C felt this was also unreasonable. We found that Mrs C had not met the criteria for a referral to a different board, as her treatment could reasonably be provided locally.

We also found that Mrs C's complaint was handled by the board in line with their complaints handling process and whilst we recognised that she did not agree with the outcome, this did not constitute evidence of maladministration on the part of the board.

We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the failure of the practice to refer her late father (Mr A) to hospital skin specialists for investigation of a lesion on his forehead. By the time a referral was made, it was too late to attempt surgery and palliative care was instigated. Mr A had a previous history of skin cancer and Mrs C felt that an early and urgent referral to the skin specialists should have been made. We took independent medical advice from a GP. We found that it was not unreasonable for the practice to have thought that Mr A had a cyst and that it was appropriate to transfer his care to district nursing staff in order that they could dress the wound. When the district nurses requested antibiotics the practice made out an appropriate prescription. It appeared that there was a change in the appearance of the lesion after Mr C had been seen by the practice. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the treatment he received at St John's Hospital. He said that his GP had been treating him for a suspected urinary tract infection and referred him to hospital. Initially staff felt that he had a viral infection, but subsequent investigations found that he had a prostatic abscess (accumulation of pus within the prostate gland) and had also developed staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (a bacterial infection). Mr C felt that there had been an undue delay in reaching an accurate diagnosis.

We took independent professional advice from a consultant physician. We found that staff had performed a number of investigations to establish the cause of Mr C's symptoms and that it was not initially unreasonable to have diagnosed him as suffering from a viral illness. His temperature fluctuated and appropriate antibiotics were administered at an early stage. The staff also arranged further appropriate investigations in case there was a danger of Mr C losing his sight or requiring heart surgery. We did not uphold the complaint.