Not upheld, no recommendations

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.

Summary

Miss C complained about the care and treatment she received at the Western General Hospital. Miss C had a history of breast cancer and at a routine examination a member of staff noticed some discolouration of the skin around the breast. Miss C was told by staff that they felt she may have dermatitis (a skin condition) and an urgent referral was made to the dermatology department (the  branch of medicine concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of skin disorders). Miss C was subsequently told that she had angiosarcoma (cancer of the inner lining of blood vessels, commonly found in the skin, breast, liver, spleen and deep tissue). Miss C felt that it was unreasonable that staff had thought she had dermatitis and by referring her to dermatology there was a delay in the treatment of her returning breast cancer.

We took independent advice from a medical adviser. We found that Miss C's original breast cancer had not returned and that she had developed a rare but recognised complication of breast cancer treatment, angiosarcoma. In its early stages, this can often look like dermatitis or bruising. We found that staff acted appropriately by arranging an urgent dermatology review with investigations which resulted in the correct diagnosis. There was no evidence of any undue delay in the diagnosis. Therefore, we did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C, an advocacy and support worker, complained on behalf of her client (Mr  A) about the care and treatment for knee pain Mr A received at Raigmore Hospital. Mr A had been assessed by a physiotherapist (a person qualified to treat disease, injury, or deformity by physical methods such as massage, heat treatment, and exercise) but they did not arrange an x-ray or CT scan. Mr A's GP continued to prescribe pain relief, but as there was no improvement he sought a private opinion. The private opinion included a CT scan of the knee which identified that Mr A would require surgery for a torn cartilage. Mr A complained that there had been a delay in his treatment by the failure of the physiotherapist to arrange a CT scan of his knee.

We took independent advice from a physiotherapist. We found that the physiotherapist had taken an appropriate medical history from Mr A and an appropriate examination which resulted in a reasonable diagnosis of degenerative damage to the knee cartilage with a treatment plan of rehabilitation. There was no clinical requirement to arrange a CT scan at that time. Although it was subsequently established that Mr A had suffered an acute cartilage injury rather than by normal wear and tear, the treatment by rehabilitation can be used for either. Therefore, did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the practice's management of his son (Mr A)'s medication.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that Mr A's medication was managed in a reasonable manner and did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his son (Mr A) about the mental health care and treatment provided by the board. Mr C complained that there had been a failure to provide support from a community psychiatric nurse, a delay in referral, and a failure to provide the necessary crisis support.

We took independent advice from a psychiatrist (a medical practitioner who specialises in the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness). We found that the mental health care and treatment provided to Mr A had been timely, supportive, and in line with Mr A's needs and wishes. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr  C's complaint.

Mr C also complained about the board's complaint response. We found that whilst the board gave limited information in response to one of Mr C's questions, this was in relation to care provided by another organisation. Therefore, we did not consider this unreasonable and we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the board unreasonably communicated with her about the care of her mother (Mrs A). Mrs C was named as Mrs A's next of kin and had been listed as Power of Attorney, although this was not invoked for the majority of the period complained about.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the records indicated Mrs C was involved regularly and kept up to date by the care home, which would be normal practice given the care home was responsible for the day- to-day care of Mrs A. We considered that the communication with Mrs C was reasonable and did not uphold the complaint.