Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C was attending the endocrinology (the branch of medicine concerned with endocrine glands and hormones) department at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary for tests associated with his body's ability to make a natural steroid hormone. Several month's later he suffered a stroke and he believed that this was a result of him taking testosterone replacement therapy. Mr C complained that during a clinic attendance he was not warned about the risks and benefits of this therapy.

We took independent endocrinology advice. We found that Mr C had been prescribed testosterone replacement therapy by his GP and that it was the responsibility of the prescribing doctor to discuss the risks and benefits with him. When hospital clinicians became aware of the testosterone therapy, they contacted the GP practice to obtain more information and suggested a way forward. We considered this to be reasonable and did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the practice's handling of a phone call made by her late son (Mr A) who had hurt his back. Mr A spoke with a triage nurse, who offered him an appointment with an Extended Scope Practitioner (ESP - a physiotherapist who can undertake extra duties such as ordering investiations or making referrals), which Mr A declined. The triage nurse advised Mr A to take regular paracetmol and ibuprofen, and to seek further assistance if his condition worsened. His request for stronger pain killers and other medication was declined. Mrs C considered that Mr A should have been seen by a GP and complained that Mr A didn't get the help he needed.

We took independent advice from a GP and a nurse. We found that the offer of an appointment with the ESP was reasonable for the assessment of back pain, and that it would have allowed for onward referral to a GP if deemed necessary. We also found that the triage nurse carried out a reasonable assessment and recorded no information that indicated the need for a GP assessment. Therefore, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the clinical treatment which she received at Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary. She had undergone surgery for a leg fracture and she said she was informed by a consultant that the wrong size of screws had been used to fix the fracture. Mrs C felt that her recovery period following the surgery was too long and this was due to the error with the screws used to hold the fracture.

We took independent advice from an orthopaedic consultant (a specialist in the treatment of diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system). We found that the screws which had been used sat slightly differently than would be expected but they were not excessively long. Mrs C had suffered a very significant injury and that would have accounted for her ongoing pain and mobility issues. The screws would have been contributing to the discomfort, however, to a lesser extent than the injury itself. We did not identify any failings in the treatment. Therefore, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the treatment he received for an injury to his achilles tendon (a band of connective tissue joining the heel bone to the calf muscle) at Dumfries & Galloway Royal Infirmary. In particular, Mr C considered that there was a delay in referring him for surgery to repair his achilles tendon. Mr C also complained that, after his surgery, he was not given appropriate treatment for the problems he experienced with the surgical wound.

We took independent advice from a consultant orthopaedic and trauma surgeon (a doctor who diagnoses and treats a wide range of conditions of the musculoskeletal system). We found that it was reasonable that Mr C was initially given conservative (non-surgical) treatment for his injury, by way of a cast. We did not consider there was an unreasonable delay in referring Mr C for surgery on his achilles tendon. The adviser explained that Mr C was at particular risk of the surgical wound being slow to heal. We considered that the treatment Mr C received for his difficulties with the wound was reasonable.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the university failed to take reasonable account of his disabilities in terms of the the impact his medication had had on his exam grades and study skills.

Our investigation found that there were a number of areas, including assessment and agreed support measure, where his needs were addressed and reasonable adjustments were put in place. Additionally, the university had exercised their discretion to allow Mr C to resit modules, in light of the difficulties he had experienced, which they were not obliged to do. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) declined an Escorted Day Absence (EDA) application, having approved two applications previously.

We found that the SPS followed the relevant legislation, carried out a detailed review of the circumstances of Mr C's EDA applications, and assessed each application on its merits.

In declining the specific application Mr C complained about, the SPS noted that the application did not meet the criteria, taking account of all the information gathered in relation to that application, including security information.

Under the legislation, the SPS has discretion to approve or refuse EDA applications. In Mr C's case, they were entitled to make this decision for his applications. We found no evidence that the SPS unreasonably declined Mr C's EDA application, and we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council failed to appropriately safeguard Mrs A and that they failed to carry out an appropriate adult support and protection investigation for Mrs A when she was hospitalised as a result of a fall.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that the council's safeguarding of Mrs A was appropriate, as it respected her wishes and promoted her independence. We further found that when an adult support and protection concern was raised for Mrs A, the council considered this, liaised with appropriate individuals and services, and closed the enquiry. We found that this was reasonable, as whilst Mrs A was in hospital she was deemed not to be at risk of harm. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained about a pre-sentence report prepared at the request of the court by the partnership's criminal justice social work service. He considered that the process and the report itself were unreasonable. Mr C also complained about contact the social work service made with two third parties regarding his case.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that the report and the process followed was reasonable and all relevant guidance was appropriately followed. We also found that there was no evidence of unreasonable contact with the two third parties. We did not uphold either of Mr  C's complaints.

Summary

Ms C, an advocacy worker, complained on behalf of her client (Ms A) about the care and treatment provided by the practice. Ms C complained that there had been unreasonable delays in the diagnosis of Ms A's bladder cancer and that a urology referral should have been made earlier.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that the referral to urology (the branch of medicine that specialises in the male and female urinary tract, and the male reproductive organs) had been made at the appropriate point and that the care provided to Ms A was reasonable for the symptoms she reported across the period covered by the complaint. We did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained about the treatment she received at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh. Ms C had a contraceptive device fitted and a number of months later she developed a number of symptoms including body aches, severe period pain, headaches and joint pain. Ms C only has one fallopian tube (either of a pair of tubes along which eggs travel from the ovaries to the uterus) and understood that the device should not have been fitted in patients with only one fallopian tube. Ms C complained about this and that she was not given anaesthetic during the procedure.

We took independent advice from a consultant gynaecologist (a doctor who specialises in the female reproductive system). We found that although the information about the device does caution against patients with only one fallopian tube, it does not give specific reasons why this is so. There was no clinical reason why the device could not be used in Ms C's circumstances. We also found that adequate consent was obtained along with an explanation of the possible side effects which could be encountered. There was also no requirement for an anaesthetic as it was not a surgical procedure. Therefore, we did not uphold Ms  C's complaint.