Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained about the treatment which he received at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary. He had attended for a regional anaesthetic (nerve block) procedure. During the procedure he suffered a reaction and became unwell with severe breathing difficulties and had to undergo Cardiopulmonary Respiration (CPR) (medical procedure for a patient in cardiac arrest). Mr C wondered if the nerve block procedure had been carried out correctly.

We took independent advice from a consultant anaesthetist and found that the nerve block procedure was performed to an appropriate standard but unfortunately Mr C had an adverse reaction, possibly due to a combination of factors. When it became evident that Mr C was experiencing problems, staff appropriately carried out CPR as a precaution. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C has a complex medical history and made a number of complaints to the board. Mr C complained that the board failed to adequately address repeated errors in the provisions of prescription drugs, failed to inform the prison service of the requirements of his care plan and allowed his medical records to be altered retrospectively. Mr C also complained about the board's handling of his complaint.

We took independent advice from an adviser specialising in general medicine. We found that, on occasion, there had been delays in the provision of prescription drugs. However, these delays did not have a significant impact and it was not unreasonable for the dispensation of medicine to be subject to prison procedures, which limited the hours when medication could be issued. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

In relation to Mr C's care plan, we found that it had been reviewed and he had been able to participate in those meetings along with prison service staff. We considered that the board communicated reasonably and appropriately with the prison service. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

In relation to Mr C's medical records, we found that the board said it was impossible to amend records retrospectively. The adviser noted that this statement was inaccurate and we provided feedback to the board in light of this. However, we found no evidence that Mr C's medical records had been altered retrospectively and did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Finally, we found that Mr C had received an explanation from the board for the way his complaint was handled and an apology for any confusion caused. We considered this approach to be reasonable and did not uphold this aspect of Mr  C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care provided to her late husband (Mr A) by the practice. Mr A who suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, a disease of the lungs in which the airways become narrowed) attended the practice on a number of occasions reporting breathing problems but felt that the doctors did not listen to him. Mr A was later admitted to hospital with pneumonia (an infection of the lungs) where he suffered a heart attack and died. Mrs C complained that the practice failed to provide Mr A with appropriate treatment in view of his symptoms.

We took independent medical advice from a GP. We found that the practice had carried out thorough investigations into the symptoms reported by Mr A and that his COPD did result in him having breathing issues. We also found that the practice prescribed appropriate antibiotics but that Mr A's condition and symptoms were drastically different between his final two consultations and it was only at that time that a hospital admission was required. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the clinical treatment which he received when he attended Borders General Hospital for treatment for a shoulder injury. He felt he had been seen by staff who were not qualified to treat his injury and that there had been a delay in seeking a surgical option for the injury. He also complained that the x-rays taken were of poor quality and that this had contributed to his delayed recovery.

We took independent advice from a consultant in orthopaedics (a specialist in the treatment of diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system). We found that Mr C had sustained a type of shoulder fracture and that these fractures are treated conservatively, without the need for surgery. Mr C's shoulder injury was initially treated by placing in a collar and cuff sling, and he was seen for follow-ups at clinics. Mr C then developed a mal union (where the bones do not heal up straight) and a stiff shoulder, which are recognised complications of the injury which Mr C had sustained. We also found that Mr C had been seen by appropriately qualified clinicians and allied health professionals and that the x- rays which were taken were of a sufficient quality. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that a sewer located behind his property routinely flooded, damaging his garden. Mr C said that Scottish Water had not taken reasonable steps to fix this and that they had not responded properly to his complaints.

Scottish Water said that they had responded to all the incidents of flooding but the problem was more widespread than Mr C's property and it had taken considerable investigation to identify the cause and possible solutions. Scottish Water also said that they had provided increasing levels of support to Mr C as the severity of the problem became apparent.

We found that Scottish Water had acted reasonably in investigating the flooding incidents and supporting Mr C. They had carried out extensive works to repair any damage and they had increased the level of support to Mr C as the complexity of the problem became apparent.

In relation to complaint handling, we found that Scottish Water should have referred Mr C to the complaints process earlier than they did. However, it was clear that Scottish Water had taken steps to improve their responses to him and the way they handled complaints. Therefore, we did not uphold either of Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that Scottish Water had failed to resolve the flooding issues he was experiencing and that they had not handled his complaints reasonably.

We found that Mr C was experiencing more than one type of flooding. Scottish Water had responded reasonably to his concerns, but one source of flooding to the front of his property was due to storm events overloading the sewerage network and could not be easily resolved. Scottish Water were working with the council to address this.

Mr C was also experiencing problems caused by a drain at the rear of his property. We found that this was not part of the public network and although Scottish Water had carried out work on it previously, they would not adopt it into the public network. We considered that Scottish Water's position was reasonable and that they had offered to provide assistance and support to Mr C, even though they were not obliged to. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his daughter (Miss A). Miss A resides in a privately owned care home. Mr C complained that the council failed to assess the suitability of another service user before placing them in the care home, and later failed to remove the service user from the care home in a timeous way when issues became apparent.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that the actions of the council in assessing the service user's suitability for the care home were reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

We also found that, whilst it took some time for the service user to be removed from the care home once issues were identified, the council had done all they reasonably could to minimise the issues and move the service user in a prompt manner. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about the way the council handled two planning applications for a new house being built near to their home. They also complained that the actions of council officers at a planning meeting had been unreasonable, as the council officers had met with the applicant.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We did find some omissions in the report of handling relating to the initial planning application, and we provided feedback to the council about this. However, on the whole, we concluded that the council's handling, processing and assessment of the planning applications were reasonable. We did not uphold these aspects of the complaint.

Regarding the meeting council officers had with the applicant, we found that this happened in order to check some information about the application. They did this at the committee meeting to avoid the need for the decision on the application to be deferred to another meeting. We considered that this was reasonable, and we noted that the council had apologised to Mr and Mrs C for not explaining why the discussion was taking place at the meeting and for not including them in the discussion. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, an MSP, complained on behalf of his constituent, that the council failed to arrange a suitable care package within a reasonable time period. Mr A spent a long time in a care home despite only ever being a temporary resident. This had resulted in excessive costs being incurred by Mr A. Mr C said that Mr A should only have to pay the respite charge, which was substantially lower.

We found that the council had acted in line with the relevant legislation and guidance. Mr A had declined to co- operate with the council by allowing an assessment of his finances, resulting in his accommodation being charged at the standard rate. We also found that although Mr A had found the experience distressing, the council had made reasonable efforts to recruit more staff to cover his care needs and that his return home had not been unreasonably delayed by failings on the part of the council. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council failed to respond appropriately to concerns raised about bullying and harassment of her child (Child A). Miss C attended a meeting with the school and the police to discuss her concerns, however, she felt that the head teacher was dismissive and did not appreciate the seriousness of the concerns she was raising. Miss C also complained that the council did not interview relevant witnesses and felt that the council were only accepting the school's account of what happened during the meeting.

The council confirmed that they were continuing to work with the police and that they were committed to supporting Child A. The council also provided details of the different support that was put in place.

We did not find any evidence to support Miss C's account of what was said during her meeting with the head teacher. We considered that the school had acted reasonably by putting in appropriate support for Child A. We also found that the council's investigation of Miss C's complaint was reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold Miss C's complaint.