Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Ms C complained that the council had unreasonably charged her for repairs to her former tenancy.

We found that it was reasonable for the council to charge Ms C for the repairs. The council had followed their procedure, although there was a delay in issuing the invoice. Ms C was also informed in writing in the tenancy agreement and during the termination process that she could be invoiced for rechargeable repairs identified after the pre-termination inspection. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Ms C also complained that the council failed to respond reasonably to her appeal for the charged repairs. We found that the council's response provided photographic evidence, referred to their recharge procedure and Ms C's tenancy agreement to support their view that the charges were due. The council provided a reasonable explanation of how they have come to their view and offered a payment plan to pay the charge in instalments. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's failure to follow the procurement process when seeking contracts for works. Mr C stated that he did not receive requests for tenders when, according to the procurement process in place, he should have been invited to provide a quotation for the jobs. Mr C provided details of several contracts which he considered were unfairly awarded to someone else, without the proper process being followed.

We found that, in relation to one of the contracts, Mr C stated that the council unreasonably included additional works under the original tender. We confirmed that this office was not permitted to investigate the terms of concluded commercial contracts and whether or not this additional work was covered under the existing terms.

In relation to another contract, Mr C stated that three contractors were not contacted for quotes as required for the value of the contract. The council were unable to provide evidence that the procurement process had been followed in line with the value of the contract. However, we also looked at several other works instructed by the council and noted that in relation to these, the council followed the procurement requirements in relation to the value of the contracts. Overall, we considered that the council had acted reasonably and did not uphold Mr C's complaint. In our feedback to the council, we highlighted the one instance where we considered the process had not been followed for a low value contract and asked the council to note the importance of adhering to the legislation.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care and treatment he received at the prison health centre. Mr C attended a number of appointments regarding a pain in his hand and wrist and said that he had severed a nerve a number of years ago. At each appointment, Mr C was assessed and prescribed different medications for pain relief, including ibuprofen gel. Mr C said that the medication was not working and pointed out that ibuprofen gel is used to treat muscle pain and not nerve pain. The prison health centre said they could not find any evidence that Mr C had damaged the nerve, despite enquiring with the relevant hospital, and they referred Mr C to the plastic surgery out-patient service for further investigation.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found evidence that Mr C had surgery to his hand and wrist a number of years ago. However, we considered that the centre carried out appropriate clinical assessments of Mr C's reported pain and the treatment prescribed based on their findings was reasonable. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the partnership's decision to stop prescribing him oral medication to treat his mental health issues. We took independent advice from a consultant psychiatrist (a medical practitioner who specialises in the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness). We found that it was reasonable that the oral medication was stopped and that Mr C was appropriately offered a long-lasting injection of medication instead. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained that he was not admitted to hospital after he attended as an emergency. We found that a detailed assessment was carried out of Mr C's condition and his level of risk. We found that the decision not to admit him to hospital was reasonable and appropriate to his needs, given his medical history. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C had been diagnosed with autistic spectrum disorder (a developmental disability that affects how a person communicates with, and relates to, other people) by the board's mental health service for children and young people (CAMHS). Shortly after discharge from CAMHS, Mr C attended A&E at St John's Hospital when he was in crisis. He was assessed by a psychiatrist (a medical practitioner who specialises in the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness) who discharged him with follow-up with the GP. Mr C said that the assessment of risk and follow-up arrangements were not reasonable given his symptoms and circumstances at the time. Mr C also said that he had subsequently been diagnosed with psychosis (when someone perceives or interprets reality in a very different way from people around them) and that it was unreasonable that the psychiatrist did not consider this.

We took independent advice from one of our medical advisers. We found that the standard of psychiatric care and treatment provided in relation to the assessment and follow-up arrangements were reasonable. In particular, the symptoms that Mr C presented with at the time were not consistent with a diagnosis of psychosis, and while it was possible that his presentation was an early sign or symptom prior to the development of psychotic symptoms at a later date, there was no evidence that this could have been predicted or anticipated. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C, an advice and support worker, complained on behalf of her client (Mrs A) regarding the treatment she received from the domiciliary podiatry service (area of medicine that treats disorders of the foot, ankle and lower limb). Mrs A complained that the podiatrists failed to review her on a regular basis and that they did not appropriately treat her foot blisters, cuts or check her foot pulses.

We took independent advice from a podiatry manager. We found that the records indicated that the podiatrists reviewed Mrs A on a regular basis based on her presenting symptoms. When she requested an emergency appointment this was arranged within an appropriate timescale. We found that the podiatrists provided appropriate treatment in view of Mrs A's presenting symptoms and that her foot pulses were checked on an annual basis in line with national guidance. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the treatment she received at Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary was unreasonable. Ms C underwent a small bowel resection (removal of part of the small intestine) and since then had experienced significant pain. Ms C said that the treatment options were restricted for her and that her symptoms were being ignored.

We took independent advice from a colorectal and general surgeon (a surgeon who specialises in conditions in the colon, rectum or anus). We found that Ms  C's medical circumstances were very complex, and from the medical notes it was clear that treatment options were not straightforward and came with many risks. We found no evidence that appropriate treatment was withheld from Ms C. We also found that the medical care Ms C received was reasonable, appropriate investigations had been made and there was careful consideration of her care with appropriate discussions and follow-up appointments arranged for further treatment. Therefore, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C, an advocacy worker, complained on behalf of her client (Ms A) about the care and treatment provided by the board in relation to a respiratory (breathing) condition. Ms C complained that Ms A had been unreasonably discharged from the care of a lung specialist when the specialist left the board. She also raised concerns about the medical and nursing care provided when Ms A was admitted to Hairmyres Hospital. Finally, Ms C complained that the follow-up Ms A received at Monklands Hospital was unreasonable and that the board's response to the subsequent complaint was unreasonable.

We took independent advice from a respiratory consultant. We found that as Ms  A's condition was stable, it was reasonable to discharge her when the lung specialist left the board. The discharge letter provided advice to Ms A's GP that if her symptoms progressed, she should be re-referred as a new patient. We also found no failings in the medical care and treatment that Ms A received either as an in-patient or in follow-up as an out-patient. Therefore, we did not uphold these parts of Ms C's complaint.

We took independent advice from a nursing adviser in relation to Ms A's concerns about nursing staff. We found that the nursing care that was provided to Ms A was reasonable. We did not uphold this part of Ms C's complaint.

Finally, we found that the response to Ms A's complaint was reasonable and considered that it addressed the points listed in her original complaint. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C, an advocacy worker, submitted a complaint on behalf of her client (Ms A). Ms A was diagnosed with polycystic ovaries (a condition that affects a woman's hormone levels) after undergoing a laparoscopic (minimally invasive) surgery to untwist a torted right ovary. Further investigations were carried out, including two ultrasound scans. After experiencing severe lower abdominal pain, an emergency salping-oophorectomy (removal of the fallopian tube and ovary) was carried out. This took place two days after Ms A's second ultrasound. Ms C complained that the second ultrasound scan was not carried out appropriately and that an ultrasound scan should have taken place when she was admitted to hospital inbetween her two other scans.

We took independent advice from an obstetrics and gynaecology consultant (a  doctor who specialises in pregnancy, childbirth and the female reproductive system). We found that it was reasonable for the board to not carry out an ultrasound scan during Ms A's admission. We noted that Ms A's condition appeared to have been managed appropriately and conservatively, based on the information known at the time. We also found that an ovarian torsion can happen over a few hours and, therefore, it is possible that it had not occurred when the second ultrasound took place. We acknowledged that it was not possible to know for certain whether anything of concern was overlooked during this ultrasound, however, we considered that the board's management of Ms A's condition was reasonable and appropriate. We did not uphold either of Ms C's complaints.

Summary

Ms C injured her shoulder and attended the emergency department where she was assessed and referred to a fracture clinic. Following the appointment at the fracture clinic, it was decided the injury should be treated conservatively. At a further follow-up appointment, it was decided that Ms C should be referred for surgery. The local orthopaedic surgeon (a specialist in the treatment of diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system) was unavailable and it was agreed that Ms C should wait until a specialist orthopaedic surgeon was available. Ms C complained that the board unreasonably delayed in performing the surgery.

We took independent advice form an orthopaedic surgeon. We found that it was reasonable that the injury was treated conservatively in the first instance and that they waited until a specialist surgeon was available. Ms C's outcome would have been affected not by the delay, but if the surgery was not performed by a specialist. Therefore, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.