Not upheld, no recommendations

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 Mr C had been on clonazepam (medication to prevent seizures) which the consultant had withdrawn following Mr C taking an overdose of the medication.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.

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.