Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mrs C complained to us that she had unreasonably been removed from the ear, nose and throat in-patient waiting list because she had cancelled three planned admissions. Mrs C felt that the board had not listened to her reasons for the cancellations as some were outwith her control.

We took independent advice and considered the guidance around removing patients from the in-patient waiting lists. We found that from a clinical perspective, there was no life-threatening reason for Mrs C to have remained on the waiting list and from a procedural aspect, staff had followed the guidance on removing a patient from the waiting list after three cancelled appointments. We did not uphold the complaint. However, we established that Mrs C had been reinstated to the waiting list and would be offered one further appointment.

Summary

Mr C complained about the treatment he received when he attended an out-of-hours service (OOHS) GP at Peterhead Hospital. Mr C said that he had collapsed at home and was taken to the OOHS where the GP performed a cursory examination and sent Mr C home. Mr C was subsequently admitted to hospital the following day and treated as an in-patient for a week.

We took independent clinical advice from an GP. We found that the OOHS GP had carried out an appropriate examination after taking into account a report from the paramedic who brought Mr C into the OOHS along with a history provided by Mr C. It was reasonable to have reached a diagnosis that Mr C had taken a reaction to the medication which had previously been prescribed by his GP and that there was no clinical indication for a hospital admission at that time. The OOHS GP could not have predicted that Mr C would then go on to develop a chest infection. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C, an advocate, complained on behalf of her client (Mr A) about the care and treatment he received following a referral to the board's musculoskeletal (MSK) hub (a specialist physiotherapy service) and following his referral to neurosurgery (branch of medicine concerned with the brain and other nerve tissue). Mr A was experiencing shooting pains down his legs.

We took independent advice from a specialist musculoskeletal physiotherapist and a consultant neurosurgeon. We found that it was reasonable for a physiotherapist to assess Mr A initially and then refer him directly to the MSK hub when there was no improvement in his condition. We also found that the MSK hub appropriately assessed Mr A in accordance with relevant guidelines and referred Mr A for an MRI scan at the appropriate time.

We found that it was reasonable for neurosurgery to send Mr A back to the MSK hub because a further period of conservative management of his symptoms might have been successful and might have avoided the need for an operation. We did not uphold Ms C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care and treatment he received for back pain while in prison. He had previously been prescribed dihydrocodeine and found this effective. The board's treatment plan included physiotherapy, a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) machine (method of pain relief involving the use of a mild electrical current), heat packs and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, but he complained that these were not effective. He had also been referred to a pain management clinic.

We took advice from an independent GP adviser. We considered the board's prescribing for Mr C's pain to be reasonable, along with the other supportive measures referred to above. We noted Mr C's wish to take dihydrocodeine for his pain, but highlighted that this is an opiate and that the prescribing of opiates in the prison setting leads to risk of misuse. The fact that the board's GPs chose not to prescribe dihydrocodeine, does not suggest that the care they have provided was below a reasonable standard. We considered that Mr C's treatment was in line with guidance on good medical practice, and therefore did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the treatment the practice provided to his mother (Mrs A). Mrs A was attended by a GP at home after it was reported she was having problems with her leg. At this time Mrs A was also receiving nursing care from district nurses. Mr C complained that the practice did not respond to a request from a district nurse for a further home visit the following day. Mrs A's condition worsened and she was admitted to hospital where she later died.

We took independent medical advice from a GP. We found that Mrs A's treatment by the practice was reasonable and found no failings in the treatment offered. We saw no evidence a district nurse requested a home visit by the practice. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his son (Mr A) that Mr A was unreasonably excluded from the university and that the investigation into the alleged misconduct was inadequate.

We found that the university had reasonably followed their disciplinary and appeals procedures including keeping to timescales and providing an opportunity for Mr A to respond to the allegations brought against him. We also found that reasonable adjustments were made, including extending timescales for Mr A to respond and allowing additional parties to attend the disciplinary committee meeting to support Mr A if required. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained about her treatment by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS). Due to her circumstances, Ms C's supervision level was raised to high. Ms C accepted the prison rules in relation to this, however, claimed that other prisoners under the same circumstances as her remained at a low supervision level. In addition to this, Ms C complained about being turned down for a job that required a low supervision level. She provided the names of a number of prisoners who she stated worked low supervision jobs despite being of a higher supervision level. Finally, Ms C complained about how her complaint was handled.

Given concerns about data protection and privacy, we did not consider it appropriate to ask SPS for information about the individuals named in Ms C's complaint. In response to the first complaint, we were satisfied that the SPS were entitled to assign Ms C a high supervision level and had provided reasonable justification for this. We were also satisfied that SPS appear to have reviewed the supervision levels of current prisoners with the same circumstances as Ms C and confirmed they are being treated consistently. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

In response to the second complaint, SPS confirmed that the job Ms C had wanted requires a low supervision level and they were not aware of any prisoner undertaking this role with a higher supervision level. However, the unit manager of the prison advised they would be willing to look at individual cases should Ms C provide details of names and dates she believed this happened. We acknowledged that the evidence available to us was limited due to not being able to directly request information relating to specific individuals. However, we were satisfied that SPS appear to have taken steps to consider whether specific work roles were being given to people of an appropriate supervision level. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

In respect of the third complaint, Ms C and SPS provided contradicting accounts of how the complaints process was handled. We did not consider there to be sufficient evidence to support one account over the other. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint. However, we provided feedback about informing prisoners of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) decision within 20 days of a complaint being referred to the ICC. 

Summary

Ms C, a support and advocacy worker, complained on behalf of her client (Ms A). Ms C complained that the council failed to handle Ms A's request for kinship care allowance in an appropriate or reasonable manner. When Ms A lived in another local authority area, she was considered to be the kinship carer for her grandchildren and was paid kinship allowances. After she moved to the Midlothian area, Ms A approached the council to request kinship allowances. The council reviewed the household circumstances and concluded that Ms A was not the primary carer for the children. As a result, no kinship allowances was paid. Ms C complained that the council failed to handle Ms A's request for kinship care allowance in an appropriate or reasonable manner. Ms A also felt that she should have been treated as the main carer for the children.

We took independent advice from an adviser with a background in social work. The adviser noted that it was a complex situation due to the number of local authorities involved and the frequent movement of the children and family during the period of time the complaint relates to. However, based on the information available, we found that it was appropriate for the council to carry out a review to establish the caring arrangements at the time. We also considered that the conclusions reached by the council appeared to be reasonable and based on appropriate evidence. Finally, we found that the evidence indicated that Ms A was treated fairly by the council during this process.

We recognised that Ms A disputed the council's understanding of the family circumstances. However, we concluded that the council had acted reasonably and reached conclusions that were justifiable and based on appropriate evidence. Therefore, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council unreasonably threatened her with legal and police action after she had written comments on social media about one of their officers. The council provided relevant documentation and information about their zero tolerance policy. They said that they had consulted their own legal team and requested that Ms C remove the comments referred to, and should she fail to do so, they would report the matter to the police and their legal team.

We found there was no evidence that the council acted unreasonably in the circumstances; there was no threat of legal action. We did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care and treatment he received from the prison health service.

Mr C was concerned, in particular, about one of his health conditions and he was unhappy with the GPs' refusal to prescribe medication long-term. We found that the decision taken by the GPs was reasonable. Mr C also complained about a failure to provide him with pain medication. We found that the medical records did not record any significant complaints of poorly controlled pain and, therefore, we did not consider that the GPs had failed to address this.

Mr C also complained about nursing staff being present at GP and psychiatry appointments. The partnership confirmed why nursing staff were present and we considered this explanation to be reasonable. The partnership also confirmed that Mr C could request to see the GP or psychiatrist alone and it would up to the GP or psychiatrist to decide whether or not they would be prepared to accommodate this.

Mr C also complained about an unreasonable delay in providing him with GP appointments. We found that Mr C often asked for a particular GP and, therefore, it was reasonable to expect that he may have to wait longer. We also found evidence that Mr C was advised of this and accepted the position.

Mr C considered that there was a failure to provide him with the type of care he would have received in the community. Mr C considered that if he was in the community he would have been prescribed the medication he wanted. We found that the GPs had acted reasonably and exercised care and compassion when making decisions. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.