Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mrs C's complaint concerned the care and treatment given to her late husband (Mr A) by his GP practice. Mr A first attended the practice with lower back pain but later attended with testicular pain. After an examination he was informed that there was suspicion of prostate cancer. An urgent referral was subsequently made by his GP and he was advised that there was a high risk that he had prostate cancer which had spread. Mr A later died. Mrs C complained that the practice had failed to properly investigate Mr A's testicular and back pain, and that their referral letter misrepresented the situation. Mrs C also complained that Mr A had been prescribed morphine which caused hallucinations and that no palliative care plan had been made for him.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that Mr A was treated reasonably and appropriately; there had been no delay in his diagnosis and an urgent referral had been made in a timely way. There was no evidence of misleading information in the referral letter and it was in line with General Medical Council Good Medical Practice. We also found that morphine could cause side-effects, particularly towards the end of life and that Mr A had been referred to the community palliative care team. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the dental treatment which his wife (Mrs A) received from her dentist. The dentist that examined Mrs A had said that there was decay in one of her teeth and that the existing crown should be removed; the decay treated; and a new crown fitted. An estimate was given for the potential costs of the treatment and/or crown, either on the NHS or as a private patient. Mrs A decided to take time to think about the matter and in the interim she increased her dental insurance cover should she have to pay a higher cost for the replacement crown. Mrs A then attended another dentist who said that there was no decay and that remedial work was not required. Mr C felt that the dentist was wrong to state that the tooth had decay and needed treatment, and as a result Mrs A had incurred extra costs.

We took independent advice from a dentist. We found that the dental treatment Mrs A received was reasonable and in line with accepted practice. Dental radiographs confirmed that there was decay in the tooth and that the existing crown did require to be removed to allow the decay to be treated. A new crown would then be required. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment which she received at the Royal Alexandra Hospital. She was in the hospital when her waters broke and there was a delay in transferring her to the labour ward. Mrs C underwent a caesarean section (surgical operation for delivering a child) and then went on to develop an infection which required antibiotics. Mrs C felt that the delay in transferring her to the labour ward was the cause of her infection.

We took independent advice from a consultant obstetrician (medical specialist in care of women before, during and after pregnancy) and gynaecologist (medical specialism in disorders of the female productive system) and found that Mrs C had received appropriate care and treatment. While there was a delay in transferring Mrs C to the labour ward, as it was busy at the time, Mrs C was kept under observation and there was no indication of problems with either her or her baby. Following the caesarean section Mrs C developed a temperature and appropriate blood tests were requested along with a medical review. Intravenous (into a vain) antibiotics (for possible infection) were started until the blood results were available. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care and treatment his partner (Ms A) received from Glasgow Royal Infirmary for pain in her stomach. He said that the board failed to appropriately diagnose and treat Ms A's health issues within a reasonable time. Mr C's concerns included that for years, Ms A had been passed from one consultant at the hospital to another, without a diagnosis being made for her health condition and appropriate treatment being provided. He was also concerned that the board was now only offering Ms A treatment at the chronic pain clinic.

We obtained independent medical advice from a consultant gastroenterologist (specialism of treatment of the stomach and intestines). We found that Ms A's management had involved numerous specialities and, that all the referrals and the sequence of investigations appeared appropriate and consistent with the clinical guidance referred to in national guidance. We also found that Ms A's regular clinic reviews, and the explanations provided to her at these appointments, seemed appropriate. In terms of the care now being offered to Ms A, we considered that it was appropriate and reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the board failed to appropriately assess and treat his chronic back pain. Mr C had received a recommendation for spinal cord stimulation (a pain management technique that involves the surgical implantation of an electrotherapeutic device onto the spinal cord) by a pain consultant from another area. The board explained to Mr C that they can only offer traditional spinal cord stimulation and not the high frequency type that was recommended for him as it was not available within Scotland. The board also said that Mr C did not meet the criteria for traditional spinal cord stimulation, which they do offer. In any case, any referral for further treatment would need to come from Mr C's local pain clinic which was not in Greater Glasgow and Clyde. Mr C was referred for a second opinion which confirmed agreement with the initial assessment and recommended a pain management programme. Mr C was dissatisfied with the board's decision and brought his complaint to us.

We took independent advice from a consultant in pain medicine. We confirmed that the treatment Mr C was seeking is not available in Scotland. We also confirmed it was correct to advise Mr C that any referral for further treatment would need to come from Mr C's local pain clinic. We concluded that the assessment of Mr C's pain was appropriate and the recommendation of a pain management programme was reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the treatment his late wife (Mrs A) received at A&E of Aberdeen Royal Infirmary. Mrs A had collapsed at home, and had suffered a fatal heart attack. Despite attempts at cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), Mrs A died. The board maintained that appropriate tests and investigations were carried out when Mrs A suddenly deteriorated and that the cardiac arrest could not have been predicted.

We took independent advice from an emergency department consultant. We found that the staff involved had carried out appropriate assessments and investigations into a possible cause for Mrs A's collapse at home and that she was being monitored appropriately. While the results of investigations were being waited on, Mrs A suddenly deteriorated and staff were unable to save her life. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about a change in his pain medication and said that he suffered significant pain as a result.

We took independent advice from a medical adviser. We found that the decision to change Mr C's pain medication was reasonable and that this was made following an appropriate and adequate assessment of his pain. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to the Care Inspectorate (CI) about the care provided to his late mother in a care home. Mr C remained dissatisfied with the CI's findings and complained further about their investigation. The CI confirmed that they were satisfied that their procedures were followed correctly.

We found that even though evidence could not be found to corroborate Mr C's complaints about his mother's care, the CI thoroughly investigated Mr C's complaints in line with their procedures. They carried out an unannounced visit to the care home, examined the care home records and interviewed all relevant witnesses. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to handle a planning appliction properly and to respond reasonably to complaints about the planning process. Mr C suggested that the council had produced an inaccurate report on the planning application, which had deliberately misled Planning Committee members. Mr C also complained that the council had attempted to improperly influence a statutory consultee by putting pressure on them in order to reverse their objection to the application. Mr C said the council had refused to correct this, even when presented with factual evidence to the contrary.

We took independent planning advice. We found that the council had acted appropriately and that the report had provided an accurate summary of the application, the objections to it and the council's statutory duties. We found that the council had handled the application reasonably and that they had responded appropriately to the complaints they had received. The council did not dispute having contacted the statutory consultee, but said the reasons for this were appropriate. The advice we received agreed with this and we found no evidence that the council had attempted to unduly influence the consultation process. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C is a tenant of the council and following an inspection from his housing officer, he was advised that he had too many cats in his property and was instructed to reduce the number to three. Mr C complained that the council failed to provide a valid reason for why he should reduce the number of pets he has. He noted that his tenancy agreement did not specify a number.

The council said that they had received reports about the condition of Mr C's property from their repairs tradesmen and a neighbour. The housing officer had also carried out an inspection. The council explained that while the tenancy agreement does not specify the number of pets a tenant should have, it is at their discretion as a landlord, and their decision is based on reasonableness and a consideration of the size of the property.

We found that the council had adequate evidence to support their decision that Mr C should reduce the number of his pets in the form of reports from their repairs tradesmen, housing officers and a neighbour. We also noted that the council sought legal advice regarding their interpretation of the tenancy agreement and that this was good practice. We did not uphold the complaint.