Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Ms C complained about the care and treatment she received from the practice regarding a flu vaccination and that the practice did not provide her with an appointment when she called them. Ms C was subsequently diagnosed with Idiopathic Thrombocytopenic Purpura (ITP, a disorder that can lead to easy or excessive bruising and bleeding. The bleeding results from unusually low levels of platelets (the cells that help blood clot)) which she considered was linked to the flu vaccination she received.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that the care and treatment Ms C received was reasonable and that she was not informed about the risk of ITP because it is not a recognised side effect of the flu vaccination.

We also found that there was no record of Ms C's call to the practice to book an appointment. We considered that it was reasonable that there was no record of this call in Ms C's medical record. In the circumstances we did not have sufficient evidence to determine whether Ms C should have been offered an appointment or that the care provided by the GP Practice was unreasonable.

We did not uphold Ms C's complaints.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the practice failed to provide her late aunt (Ms A) with appropriate care and treatment. Ms A visited the practice on three occasions and was later admitted to hospital where she was diagnosed with septicaemia (blood poisoning), multi-organ failure and metastatic gastric (stomach) cancer. Mrs C complained that the practice failed to reasonably investigate Ms A's symptoms. Mrs C also complained that the practice failed to respond to her complaint in a reasonable way.

The practice acknowledged that there were shortcomings in record-keeping and checking observations. The practice apologised and took action to address these issues.

We took independent advice from an adviser in general practice medicine. We found that the investigation and treatment decisions provided to Ms A at each of the three consultations were of a reasonable standard and that an emergency admission to hospital by ambulance was not required given the circumstances. We considered that the standard of medical care and treatment provided to Ms A was reasonable. We also found that the practice responded to Mrs C's complaint in a reasonable way. Therefore, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaints.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the medical care and treatment her late mother (Mrs A) received when she attended the emergency department at Queen Elizabeth University Hospital. Mrs C said that no blood or blood gases tests were carried out before Mrs A was discharged.

We took independent advice from a consultant in emergency medicine. We found that there had been no indication to carry out blood or blood gases tests when Mrs A had attended the emergency department and that the care and treatment she received had been reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Having been diagnosed with lung cancer, Mrs C complained that she had been attending the practice for years with breathlessness and she considered that she should have been referred for specialist investigation sooner. The practice noted that Mrs C was fully investigated for intermittent complaints of breathlessness, and that she was diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD - a disease of the lungs in which the airways become narrowed). The practice said that when Mrs C presented with new symptoms (a nocturnal cough along with worsening breathlessness) she was promptly investigated and the diagnosis of lung cancer was made. They did not consider there were previously any suggestive symptoms that might have prompted an earlier referral for suspicion of cancer. They noted that the grading of the cancer indicated it had been detected relatively early, and they considered that her COPD was the more likely source of her breathlessness.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that it was reasonable for the practice to have made a presumptive diagnosis of COPD and that they sought to manage this within the primary care setting. The adviser said that the practice could have considered requesting a chest x-ray and respiratory referral around ten months earlier than they did, as Mrs C had reported worsening breathlessness (not just on exertion but also at rest). However, the adviser did not consider it unreasonable for them not to have taken that approach. They noted Mrs C was referred for breathing tests at that time, which confirmed the COPD diagnosis. On balance, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care and treatment he received from the ear, nose and throat (ENT) service at Inverclyde Royal Hospital. Specifically, that he was not examined thoroughly and that staff were dismissive of his symptoms being related to sinusitis (inflammation of the lining of the sinuses).

We took independent advice from a consultant ENT surgeon experienced in treating cases requiring sinus surgery. We found that Mr C's symptoms had been appropriately investigated, in particular with CT scans (a scan that uses x-rays and a computer to create detailed images of the inside of the body) and endoscopy (direct visualisation by camera). There was no evidence to show that Mr C had bacterial or fungal sinusitis or any evidence of a sinus tumour. We considered that Mr C's care and treatment was reasonable and appropriate and did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained to us about the treatment she received from her dentist. She said that the dentist had damaged the cartilage in her jaw and it was causing her severe pain. When Ms C reported this to the dentist she was advised to stay on a soft diet and that she would be referred to dental consultants should the problem remain.

We took independent advice from a dentist. We found that there was no evidence that the treatment the dentist had provided was inappropriate or that it was the cause of the jaw problems. We found that Ms C had reported problems with her jaw a number of years previously but that no remedial action was required at that time. We found that the advice given by the dentist was reasonable and appropriate. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the treatment he received from a consultant psychiatrist (a medical practitioner who specialises in the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness) at Whyteman's Brae Hospital. Mr C had been on clonazepam (medication to prevent seizures) which the consultant had withdrawn following Mr C taking an overdose of the medication. Mr C believed that the stopping of the medication adversely affected his health as he started suffering from rapid myoclonic jerks (involuntary contraction of muscles) which was the reason the medication had been prescribed in the first instance.

We took independent advice from a consultant psychiatrist. We found that the consultant had appropriately assessed Mr C following the reported overdose and that it was appropriate to stop the medication for some time. The plan was to observe Mr C for a period at the clinic and through his contact with a community psychiatric nurse and when Mr C reported a recurrence of the myoclonic jerks, the clonazepam was reinstated. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained about the care provided to her late mother (Mrs A) at University Hospital Ayr. Mrs A was receiving dialysis (a treatment which mimics many of the kidney's functions). Miss C complained about the care provided to her mother in relation to an arteriovenous fistula (a blood vessel created in the arm for transferring blood into the dialysis machine and back again) following a dialysis session. Miss C considered that the interruption in her mother's normal dialysis routine as a result of the fistula problems impacted on her renal (relating to the kidneys) care and her overall deterioration.

We took independent advice from a consultant physician with experience in dialysis. We found that the care provided in relation to the insertion of the needles at the fistula was reasonable. We found that the most likely cause of extensive bruising to Mrs A's arm was caused by a pseudoaneurysm (a collection of blood that forms behind the two outer layers of an artery) behind the fistula and that the cause of the bleed was difficult to determine.

We also found that, given the condition of Mrs A's arm, the decision to the continue with dialysis using a permcath (a type of venous catheter) was the most appropriate treatment option and that there was no unreasonable delay in changing to this option. We found that the interruption to Mrs A's normal dialysis routine as a result of the fistula problems did not impact on her renal care and her overall deterioration.

We did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained about the university's investigation into her complaint to them. Ms C had a number of concerns including the length of time that the university's investigation took to conclude, that the investigator was not impartial, and that the university had inappropriately told her that she was bound by confidentiality in relation to the complaint.

We found that the university's investigation into Ms C's complaint had been reasonable. We noted that the investigation was complex and involved interviews with a number of parties, and that the university had already apologised for the length of time taken to conclude the investigation. We did not find any evidence to suggest that the university's investigator was not impartial. We determined that it had been reasonable to remind Ms C that there was a need for confidentiality during the investigation, though we fed back to the university that they may wish to consider how this information is given in future investigations. We did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) failed to identify and investigate apparent misconduct in line with their Inquiry Policy, and failed to consistently explain their interpretation of the Statement of Recommended Practice (SORP) in relation to accounting and financial reporting.

We found that OSCR had followed their Inquiry Policy in assessing and investigating the apparent misconduct Mr C reported. In addition, they had clearly explained their role, responsibilities and obligations to Mr C. We also found that, while Mr C did not agree with OSCR's interpretation of SORP, OSCR's position was reasonable and they had clearly explained it. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.