Not upheld, no recommendations

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.

Summary

Mr C, an MP, complained on behalf of his constituent (Ms A) that the partnership mishandled a complaint Ms A made to them about incorrect information in her medical records.

We found that, while the error concerned was extremely serious, it was clear that the partnership had admitted the error, amended the record and made a very sincere and full apology to Ms A. They had also put in place new checking procedures to prevent the same mistake occurring again. We found that there was no evidence to suggest that the partnership's approach to Ms A's complaint was unreasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained about the treatment she received from the partnership in response to pain in her right thigh. Ms C had previously underwent a total left hip replacement. After the surgery Ms C attended a physiotherapy (the treatment of disease, injury or deformity using physical methods such as massage, heat treatment, and exercise) appointment due to pain in her right thigh. While Ms C was carrying out the exercises recommended by the physiotherapist, she experienced pain and a tearing sensation on her operated on side. Ms C said that it was unreasonable to have prescribed those exercises so soon after her operation. Ms C said she was not provided with the appropriate advice or precautions to follow.

We took independent medical advice from a consultant vascular surgeon (a clinician who treats disorders of the circulatory system). We found that the exercises prescribed to Ms C were reasonable and found no failings in the treatment offered. There was a record that appropriate precautionary guidance was provided to Ms C. Therefore, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, an advocate, complained on behalf of his client (Miss A) about the post-operative care Miss A received at Golden Jubilee National Hospital. Miss A underwent a total hip replacement and was discharged under a week later. Miss A complained that she did not feel ready to return home so soon after surgery and wished to be admitted to a community hospital to recuperate. She was advised that she did not meet the criteria for admission to a community hospital, so she arranged to be transferred to a nursing home. Miss A said that, prior to her discharge, no one had explained to her she would have to pay to stay in the nursing home. She also complained that no referrals had been made for physiotherapy (the treatment of disease, injury or deformity using physical methods such as massage, heat treatment, and exercise) or occupational therapy (a method of helping people who have been ill or injured to develop skills or get skills back by giving them certain activities to do), and said that her recovery time was longer as a result.

We took independent advice from a consultant orthopaedic surgeon (a specialist in the treatment of diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system). We found that Miss A's discharge and arrangements for follow-up care were reasonable. We noted that Miss A's concerns had been discussed with her and extra help for when she returned home was offered but declined. Miss A had been assessed as having achieved her rehab goals while an in-patient and was assessed as being safe for discharge home. We did not find any evidence why Miss A would have expected to receive respite care following her surgery. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained about the care provided to her late mother (Mrs A) by the practice. Mrs A had attended the practice on a number of occasions with chest pains, confusion, arm weakness and sight problems. Mrs A also had a history of high cholesterol (a fatty substance found in the body that can increase risk of health conditions) and a family history of heart problems. Mrs A later died at home and Ms C felt that the GPs involved in her care should have made earlier referrals to hospital specialists.

We took independent medical advice from a GP. We found that although Mrs A had attended the practice on a number of occasions before her death, she had not reported chest pain for a period of six months and it was felt reasonable that the staff had assumed her previously reported symptoms had resolved. During previous consultations with GPs they had considered a number of diagnoses and prescribed appropriate medication for the symptoms which were reported. There were also attendances at hospital where scan results were reported as being normal. Therefore, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint. However, we provided feedback to the practice that on one occasion, there was a need to make a referral to cardiology for further investigation and to provide Mrs A with safety netting advice. While there was no evidence that this would have prevented Mrs A's death, it may have led to an earlier diagnosis of heart problems and allowed treatment options if required.

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf of her husband (Mr A) regarding the delay in reaching a diagnosis of prostate cancer during consultations at Perth Royal Infirmary. In response to Mrs C's complaint, the board explained that a number of factors had contributed to the time taken to diagnose Mr A. The board said that Mr A's symptom pattern was unusual, and investigations were initially performed to rule out bladder and kidney cancer. Mrs C was unhappy with this response and brought her complaint to us.

We took independent advice from a consultant urologist (a specialist in the study or treatment of the function and disorders of the urinary system). We found that it was reasonable of the board to first exclude the possibility of bladder or kidney cancer before investigating the possibility of prostate cancer. We also found that the department had carried out appropriate tests prior to Mr A being reviewed by the consultant. We considered that the board had met the waiting time targets and did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. Although we did not consider that the delay in diagnosis was unreasonable in this case, we gave detailed feedback to the board regarding areas for potential improvements in practice.