Not upheld, no recommendations

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.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council had not followed their policies and procedures in relation to an incident involving her child (Child A).

We found that the council had rightly initiated their child protection procedures. The council had also followed their processes, and had met with Miss C to agree a safety plan, taking account of both her views and those of Child A. We did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the association responded unreasonably to reports of water ingress in her home.

We found that the association responded to each fault within the timescales set out in their repairs and maintenance policy, acknowledged the inconvenience caused and offered a goodwill payment. We considered that this response was reasonable and did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the out-of-hours care provided to his mother (Mrs A) by the partnership. Mrs A was started on antibiotics for cellulitis (a bacterial infection of the skin and tissues beneath the skin) but the following day Mr C rang NHS 24 as he remained concerned about her symptoms. An out-of-hours doctor visited Mrs A at home to further assess her condition. A few hours after the home visit, Mr C rang NHS 24 again raising concerns about a deterioration in Mrs A's condition and an ambulance was arranged. Mrs A was admitted to intensive care with sepsis. Mr C complained that the out-of-hours doctor failed to recognise the potential seriousness of Mrs A's symptoms and failed to arrange hospital admission.

We took independent medical advice from a general practitioner. We found that the doctor carried out an appropriate examination and assessed Mrs A as being clinically stable. We were satisfied that the doctor took reasonable account of the family's concerns. We found that the doctor did not overlook any significant signs or symptoms, and noted in particular that Mrs A's presenting symptoms did not meet the high-risk criteria for urgent emergency care. We also noted that the doctor provided appropriate advice to attend A&E if Mrs A's condition worsened. We considered that the out-of-hours care provided by the partnership was reasonable and did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Miss C requested an assessment from the Occupational Therapy Service with a view of adapting her property to meet her mobility needs. Miss C complained that the partnership failed to carry out a thorough assessment and that they failed to provide consistent and accurate information about their policies relating to grants and adaptations.

The partnership confirmed that there were appropriate and timely assessments carried out of Miss C's needs. However, they recognised that improvements are required on how they communicate their decisions and support customers in complex situations. Miss C was unhappy with this response and brought her complaint to us.

We found that the partnership's assessments were consistent with the guidance as set out in the their Occupational Therapy Service Criteria. We also found that Miss C was provided with consistent advice about her eligibility for grants and adaptations. We did not uphold Miss C's complaints. However, we asked the partnership to provide evidence of the improvements they are making to their processes.

Summary

Mr C complained about the treatment he received in A&E at Ninewells Hospital. Mr C had had attended with symptoms of severe headache and double vision. He was given painkillers and told to return for a scan the following week. A few days later Mr C awoke with blood coming from his nose and mouth and contacted the Acute Medical Unit. He was asked to return the following day for a head scan which found that Mr C had suffered an internal carotid artery dissection (a tear in one of the arteries in the neck). Mr C felt that the head scan should have been taken when he first attended hospital.

We took independent advice from a consultant in acute medicine. Our investigation of the complaint was affected as the original case notes could not be located by the board and we had to rely on the contents of the immediate hospital discharge letter and a statement made by a doctor during the board's investigation of the complaint. We were unable to establish if the doctor managed to obtain a full medical history from Mr C about his symptoms and whether a full assessment had been carried out. There was some evidence that a full examination had been performed. There was no question that a head scan was required, and had insufficient resources been an issue at the time, then Mr C should have been recalled, ideally, the following day. However, this was dependent on the reported symptoms at that time. We found that appropriate advice was given to Mr C to seek further medical advice should his symptoms deteriorate. On balance, in view of the missing clinical records, it was felt that we could neither uphold or not uphold the complaint. We made no finding on the complaint.