Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Ms C complained about the decision to withdraw funding from her father's (Mr A) care home placement. The council believed Mr A had deliberately deprived himself of an asset in order to avoid paying fees. We had asked the council to review this decision; however, having done so, they upheld their original decision.

We found that the council acted reasonably in their application of the relevant guidance on charging for residential care. The council was able to evidence that they were not required to prove that deprivation of assets was the primary motive in the disposal of an asset. The council was only required to show that it was reasonable to conclude from the available evidence that the deprivation of assets could have been a motivation. We found that the council could have reasonably reached that conclusion from the evidence and their decision was, therefore, reasonable. We did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had taken an unreasonable amount of time to mark an advisory disabled parking space at his home, and that the councils handling of his complaint was unreasonable.

We found that the councils handling of both matters was reasonable and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained that the partnership did not properly safeguard her children following an incident that involved her youngest child (Child A) being assaulted by an older child (Child B) during the summer holidays while under the care of a child care facility, specifically, that Child A came into contact with Child B some months later outside of Child A's school. In addition, her oldest child (Child C) also came into contact with Child B when they moved to secondary school.

In response to the complaint, the partnership explained that at that time, a resolution was reached in that a new route was negotiated to avoid Child A coming into contact with Child B. In addition, with regard to the concerns raised after Child C came into contact with Child B at secondary school, Child B was transferred to a different establishment.

We took independent advice from a social worker. Whilst we considered that there were some aspects of the support offered to Miss C around the time of the assault that could have been better, we did not consider that the partnership acted unreasonably. We found that it was not possible to ensure that there would never be contact in the community unless there was an order directing someone not to frequent a particular area or venue. We also considered that it would have been preferable if the partnership had considered that Child C might attend the same secondary school as Child B as part of their planning. However, given the time that had passed, and that there was no ongoing contact with social work, we considered this was not unreasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained about the care and treatment her mother (Ms A) received at the Golden Jubilee National Hospital. Ms A had bilateral uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS - a type of 'keyhole' surgery where only very small cuts (incisions) are made to the body). Ms C was concerned about the length of time Ms A had to wait for surgery, that surgery was not the appropriate treatment and that further investigations were not carried out before the surgery.

We took independent advice from a consultant in thoracic surgery (also known as cardiothoracic surgery. It is the field of medicine involving the surgical treatment of organs inside the chest). We found that all investigations necessary for surgery were performed according to the relevant guidelines and that the type of surgery was reasonable and performed within a reasonable length of time. We did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the actions of a court appointed psychologist who interviewed him after he had been convicted of an offence.

In their response to the complaint the board set out the reasons why the court decided to appoint the psychologist. They also explained that specific information was required from Mr C so that the psychologist could prepare a report for the court, prior to Mr C being sentenced.

We found that the board investigated the complaint and clearly explained why the psychologist had to ask for the information. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Ms C had an ad-hoc consultation with a podiatrist (a clinician who diagnoses and treats abnormalities of the lower limb). The podiatrist asked a diabetic consultant if they would review Ms C on the same day. Ms C was concerned that the diabetic consultant did not see her.

Summary

Mr C complained that the practice wrongly focused their assessment and treatment on the wrong condition, which caused a delay in him being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.

We took independent GP advice and found that the care provided, and investigations carried out, were in line with the Scottish Cancer Referral Guidelines. When Mr C's symptoms changed, the appropriate referrals were made. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the treatment he received from the board, when he was referred for the provision of a specialist prosthetic (artificial substitute or replacement of a part of the body). Mr C had to travel a long distance and attend a number of consultations because he had problems with the prosthetic which had been provided and it failed to fit his limb properly, and was out of alignment.

We took independent advice from an adviser. We found that the staff had listened to Mr C's concerns and made a number of attempts to provide him with a satisfactory fit for the prosthetic but they were unable to meet his needs. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that his wife (Ms A) contracted methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA - a bacterial infection that is resistant to a number of widely used antibiotics) due to medical negligence in the Princes Royal Maternity Unit (PRMU), and of a subsequent delay in identifying and appropriately treating the infection. Mr C considered that Ms A contracted MRSA as a result of negligence following the birth of their child. He considered that there was a delay in medical staff diagnosing the infection and thereafter providing proper treatment. Ms A returned home, continuing to have difficulties, and had to receive treatment despite having been discharged from the PRMU.

We requested the relevant medical files and asked an independent medical adviser to consider the care and treatment provided to Ms A. The medical records evidenced that the treatment in hospital had been appropriate, with Ms A's observations being monitored appropriately and decisions taken to discharge her were reasonable in the circumstances. However, on re-admission it was apparent Ms A was suffering from an infection. We found that appropriate investigations were undertaken in a timely manner to identify the cause of Ms A's infection when her symptoms became apparent. The antibiotic treatment was revised when tests concluded the cause of the infection was MRSA. There was no evidence of medical negligence that resulted in the infection. We concluded that the diagnosis and treatment provided to Ms A was reasonable, and therefore did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment she received from the board for her bunions (painful swellings on the first joint of the big toes). Mrs C complained that the board failed to advise her prior to her bunion surgery that permanent nerve damage or bone fracture were potential complications of the surgery. Mrs C said that if she had been advised of these potential outcomes, she would not have gone ahead with the operation.

We took independent medical advice on the case from a consultant orthopaedic and trauma surgeon (a specialist in the treatment of diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system). We found that nerve damage and bone fracture were recognised complications of the surgery Mrs C had. We also found that the appropriate consenting process was carried out and the correct consent form was signed by Mrs C and the doctor who was to carry out her surgery. The consent form listed the complications of the procedure, including nerve damage and fracture. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.