Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that the board unreasonably cancelled his nose operation and did not provide a reasonable explanation as to why. Mr C suffers from allergic rhinitis (inflammation of the inside of the nose caused by an allergen). Mr C said that the other treatments offered were not taken forward.

We took independent medical advice from an ear, nose and throat surgeon. We found that Mr C's treatment by the board was reasonable and found no failings in the treatment offered. Mr C was referred for alternative treatments as had been agreed with the surgeon. The proposed operation could have provided some limited benefit to Mr C, although it would have not stopped him requiring long- term medication to manage his allergic rhinitis. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr  C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, an MP, complained on behalf of his constituent (Ms A) that her medical practice failed unreasonably to refer her to community mental health care services, and later dealt unreasonably with her complaint about this.

Ms A believed that her GP treated her differently after incorrect information was sent to the medical practice by a clinician. While the information was corrected and apologies were made, Ms A said that it had negatively effected her mental health. While Ms A said she requested on many occasions to be referred to a community mental health care service, she was not referred.

We took independent advice from a GP . We found that the advice given to Ms A had been reasonable and signposting to community mental health support services was appropriate in the circumstances.

Ms A also complained that a member of staff had unreasonably been involved in the complaints process. We found no evidence of this . The complaints were not upheld.

Summary

Mr C complained about aspects of his care and treatment which he received at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary. Mr C said that he received inconsistent explanations from staff about the cause of his back pain. He was also dissatisfied with the pain relief which was provided as it did not meet his needs.

We took independent medical advice from a consultant neurosurgeon (surgeon of the brain or other nerve tissue). We found that Mr C had a complex surgical history and a chronic pain condition. We found that although the staff had referred to the cause of Mr C's back pain differently at times, the explanations had the same meaning and that did not mean that his treatment was inappropriate. We also found that there was record of Mr C reporting pain and that the actions of staff by prescribing different painkillers and referring Mr C to the pain clinic were appropriate. We did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Ms C complained that the decision to stop her medication when she arrived at prison was unreasonable. When Ms C arrived in prison, a doctor reviewed her prescribed medications. The doctor discussed the matter with Ms C's community practice and following that, took the decision to stop the medications no longer required. Ms C said that the stopping of her medications left her in severe pain and affected her mental health.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser. We found that appropriate pain relief medication had been prescribed to Ms C and that the decision to stop the other medications was reasonable because there was no requirement indicated for them to be continued. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained about the treatment she received from her dentist. She said that she had presented with a small chip on a tooth and that the dentist had put on a small filling which repeatedly fell off. Miss C said that at the time of the filling the dentist ground the tooth down with an implement. Miss C said that when the filling fell out she was left with an unsightly tooth and she continually had to pay for the filling to be replaced.

We took independent advice from a dentist. We found that there was no evidence that the treatment provided was inappropriate or that it was the cause of the filling repeatedly falling out. The records indicated that the dentist had listened to Miss C's concerns about the tooth and explained the potential treatment options. We considered that the problems Miss C reported to the dentist were likely to have been caused by natural wear and tear and that it was appropriate to have offered her the different treatment options. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf of her husband (Mr A) about the care and treatment he received. Mr A was admitted to Queen Margaret Hospital for surgery to treat a hernia (where an internal part of the body pushes through a weakness in the muscle or tissue near the belly button). He was discharged home on the same day as his surgery. However, Mr A began to experience pain at home that worsened overnight. Early the next morning, Mr A was taken by ambulance to Victoria Hospital. He was found to have suffered a serious complication from his surgery.

Mrs C complained that Mr A should not have been discharged home after his surgery at Queen Margaret Hospital. We took independent advice from a general and colorectal surgeon (a surgeon who specialises in conditions in the colon, rectum or anus). We found that it was reasonable that Mr A was discharged home, as his did not yet have signs of any complication from the surgery and his recovery was as expected. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Mrs C also complained that when Mr A arrived at Victoria Hospital, he was not assessed at A&E before he was transferred to the surgical assessment unit. We took independent advice from an emergency medicine consultant. We found the board's process is that where a patient has recently undergone surgery, they are transferred straight to the surgical assessment unit if they are clinically stable. We found that the process was reasonable and safe and it did not cause any undue delay in Mr A's care and treatment. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the lack of pain relief provided to his late mother (Mrs A) and that she did not have a regular doctor who saw her during her admission to Castle Douglas Hospital. Mr C also complained about the board's communication with him about the decline in his mother's condition.

We took independent advice from a nursing adviser. We found that Mrs A's pain was assessed appropriately during her admission and the pain relief provided to her was reasonable. Mrs A was reviewed by doctors during her admission and the input from medical staff was reasonable. We also found that the board's communication with Mr C was reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment given to her late husband (Mr A) by the practice before his death. In particular, she said that he was given a specific medication in tablet form althought it was known that he had swallowing problems, that communication from the practice had been poor and that Mr A had had sepsis (a blood infection) which had gone undiagnosed.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that Mr A was taking many different medications all in tablet form and there was no information in his medical records to indicate that he had a problem swallowing medication. We also found that the records showed appropriate communication and no evidence that Mr A had sepsis.

We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, a legal representative, complained on behalf of his client (Mr A) who was withdrawn from his course at the university. Mr C complained that the university failed to follow their academic engagement and attendance procedures in relation to meeting with Mr A to discuss his absences, and that the university had failed to consider all of the grounds of appeal.

We found that the university had emailed Mr A regarding his absences on at least five occasions, and had met with him to discuss his absences, prior to him being withdrawn from the course. We therefore considered that the university had followed the academic engagement and attendance procedures and we did not uphold this complaint.

We also found that it was clear that Mr A had the opportunity to present his appeal to the committee and that the committee had sight of documents submitted in support of the appeal. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) unreasonably refused to allow him access to a laptop. Mr C said that he had a degenerative condition (a disease in which the function or structure of the affected tissues or organs worsens over time) and a laptop had specialist software that would allow him to communicate as his condition progressed.

We found that the SPS responded reasonably to Mr C's request. We also noted that once Mr C had received a specialist assessment for his degenerative condition, the prison service had agreed to work with his medical team to resolve the issue. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C was also concerned about the way his complaint was handled. We found that the SPS handled Mr C's complaint reasonably and did not uphold this aspect of his complaint.