Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Ms C, an advice worker, complained on behalf of her client (Mr A) about the care provided to him by the practice. Mr A had repeatedly reported his concerns about stomach problems and when he was referred to hospital specialists they diagnosed that he had a stomach ulcer. Mr A felt that there was a delay in referring him to the hospital specialists.

We took independent medical advice from a GP. We found that the practice had appropriately assessed Mr A's reported stomach problems over a period of years, provided appropriate medication and referred Mr A to hospital specialists when his symptoms failed to resolve. There was no delay in the referral to the hospital specialists, and while initially the hospital specialists had diagnosed a stomach ulcer, there were also thoughts that Mr A's symptoms were related to his other health conditions. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained about the care and treatment her late father (Mr A) had received in Glasgow Royal Infirmary before his death. Mr A had previously been diagnosed with lung cancer, which had been treated with radiotherapy (a  treatment using high-energy radiation). He also had moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a disease of the lungs in which the airways become narrowed), peripheral vascular disease (a common condition, in which a build-up of fatty deposits in the arteries restricts blood supply to the leg muscles) and severe heart disease. After his admission to the hospital, Mr A's condition deteriorated over the next week and staff decided that he was not fit enough to undergo further radiotherapy. Mr A died just over a week after being admitted to hospital.

We took independent advice from a consultant in acute medicine. We found that there had not been any failings in Mr A's care and treatment. His oxygen levels had been monitored appropriately and the action taken to diagnose and treat his chest infection were reasonable. It had also been reasonable to give Mr A morphine (pain relief) and to discuss end of life care with him. We did not, therefore, uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment her late husband (Mr A) received from the board's out-of-hours emergency care centre and during his time as an in-patient at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary. In particular, Mrs C was dissatisfied that the out-of-hours service did not admit Mr A to hospital at the time and that after he was admitted around a week later, he died following a head scan.

We took independent advice from a general practitioner in relation to the out-of-hours care and treatment. We found that an appropriate medical history was taken and an appropriate examination performed. We considered that it was not necessary to repeat blood tests that had been done at Mr A's GP practice which were found to be abnormal. We found that the out-of-hours service's decision not to admit Mr A to hospital was in keeping with national guidelines on the treatment of community acquired pneumonia (an infection of the lungs) and that appropriate antibiotic treatment was prescribed with follow-up review advised. Therefore, we considered that the out-of-hours care was reasonable and we did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

In terms of the hospital care and treatment, we took independent advice from a consultant in general medicine. We considered overall that there was evidence to show that the severity of Mr A's illness was recognised and responded to appropriately. We found that it was reasonable to perform a head scan given Mr  A's increasing confusion and there was evidence to show that his clinical observations (temperature, pulse, blood pressure and breathing rate) were stable before it was carried out. We found that there was evidence to support that communication took place with Mrs C and the family regarding Mr A's deteriorating condition and the possibility that he might not survive. We did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint but provided feedback to the board about checking a families understanding of information given to them.

Summary

Miss C, an advice worker, complained on behalf of her client (Mr B) regarding the care and treatment of his late wife (Mrs A). Mrs A had been admitted to Forth Valley Royal Hospital for treatment for influenza and was discharged back to her care home with medication. Mrs A had to be readmitted after five days where she was treated for pneumonia (a lung infection). Mrs A did not respond to further treatment and died in the hospital. Mr B felt that Mrs A should not have been discharged from the hospital initially and that staff had reached a wrong diagnosis.

We took independent advice from a consultant in medicine and found that Mrs A had received appropriate treatment during the hospital admissions. In the first admission, her symptoms were appropriately diagnosed as being influenza related and she received appropriate investigations and treatment and was discharged when her symptoms improved. Mrs A was then readmitted with different symptoms suggestive of further or a new chest infection. We did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his wife (Mrs A). Mrs A was referred to the board by her dentist for a wisdom tooth extraction. After the procedure Mrs A experienced significant pain and other adverse symptoms. She was re-referred to the board by her dentist for further review, however, they did not identify any post-operative issues such as nerve damage, other than that the surgical site was healing slowly. Mr C complained that the dentist failed to provide thorough information about the risks associated with the wisdom tooth extraction, and that the procedure was not performed correctly.

We took independent dental advice. We found that the information and advice provided to Mrs A was clear and in line with national guidance. We also found there was no evidence to suggest the procedure was not performed correctly. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment provided to her late husband (Mr  A). Mr A was admitted to Victoria Hospital day surgery for an operation. Mrs  C called the hospital the next morning to advise that Mr A was unwell, and was told to call his GP. Following GP review, Mr A was admitted to hospital, where he was subsequently diagnosed with necrotising fasciitis (a very aggressive bacterial infection). He died in hospital less than two weeks later.

The board carried out an investigation into the source of Mr A's infection, but concluded that they could not say whether the infection was acquired in hospital or in the community. Mrs C complained about the infection, and that the nurse she spoke to on the phone the day after the surgery was not more supportive. In response to Mrs C's complaint, the board met with her family and explained their findings. The board apologised for the poor communication by the nurse, and shared Mrs C's concerns with the ward for reflection and learning. The board also put in place new procedures for responding to calls from patients or family. Mrs C remained dissatisfied with the board's response, and she brought her complaint to us.

Mrs C complained to us that the board unreasonably failed to prevent infection during Mr A's operation. We took independent advice from a general and colorectal surgeon, and from a nurse. We found that, whilst some aspects of the surgical care could have been improved, staff had taken reasonable steps to reduce the risk of infection during the operation, although it was not possible to eliminate the risk entirely. We also found that, once Mr A was re-admitted, staff identified his infection and began antibiotics promptly. We found that the board had carried out a reasonable and timely investigation into the source of the infection, and we agreed with their finding that it was not possible to know with certainty where this was acquired. We did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

Mrs C also complained that the board failed to provide adequate support when she called the hospital the morning after Mr A's surgery. We found that it was appropriate for the nurse to refer Mrs C to the GP because Mr A required an assessment of his medical condition, which the nurse was not qualified to give. Whilst we were not able to comment on the tone or tenor of this conversation, we noted that the board had taken appropriate steps by sharing Mrs C's concerns with nursing staff for reflection. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream were unreasonably double billing him for water. He said that his property had two separate units, one which was a flat originally tenanted but now separately owned, and another that was a vacant commercial unit which had been renovated. Originally there had been a single metered supply but this had now been separated, with each property supplied individually. Mr C said Business Stream were unreasonably billing him for water used by the flat, despite agreeing that it should be charged for water through its council tax bill. Mr C also complained that he was being unreasonably charged property drainage and the charge for a new water connection was too high.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council did not take reasonable action following various reports he made about his neighbour's antisocial behaviour.

We found that the council assessed and investigated the reports, made visits to the block, undertook interviews, and also took into account actions of other bodies and court action. The council also re-assessed the situation as new information was presented or new developments occurred. We decided that the council took reasonable action in line with their policy and explored possible avenues to resolution. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council did not take adequate action to address bullying targeted at her child (Child A). She said that the sanctions applied to the other children were not adequate. The council confirmed that the school recorded and responded to the incidents reported to them appropriately. They said that some of the incidents occurred outside of school hours and, therefore, they were not aware of them. The school also delivered classroom based sessions to promote positive relationships and respect and offered restorative sessions / mediation to Child A. Mrs C was unhappy with this response and brought her complaint to us.

We found that the council followed their procedures correctly. Incidents were recorded, and professional judgement was exercised regarding what action to take to address the incidents. The school offered weekly sessions to Child A, however, they acknowledged that these were taking place on an ad hoc basis. The council agreed to work with the school to improve this aspect of their procedures. We are satisfied that the school took reasonable steps to address Mrs C's concerns about bullying and did not uphold her complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the head teacher of her child's school did not follow procedures to deal with disruptive behaviour in class or alleged bullying. She also complained about the council's handling of her complaint.

We found sufficient evidence that the head teacher followed relevant procedures to deal with disruptive behaviour, and that the council's handling of Mrs C's complaint was reasonable. In relation to bullying, we found there might have been one incident where the head teacher did not record a bullying incident. In relation to other incidents of alleged bullying, we found no evidence that the head teacher was aware of them or had been made aware of them by Mrs C, her child, or school staff. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints.