Not upheld, no recommendations

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.

Summary

Mr C and Ms C complained about the care and treatment provided to their late son (Mr A) and about the practice's response to their complaint. Mr A had a history of mental ill-health and attended his GP practice concerned about a deterioration in his mental health. Shortly after his last attendance at the practice, Mr A completed suicide. Mr C and Ms C were concerned that the GP who cared for Mr A failed unreasonably to recognise that he was at significant risk of suicide and refer him immediately for psychiatric in-patient care.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser. We found that the standard of medical care and treatment provided to Mr A in the weeks leading up to his death was reasonable and that his death could not have been predicted or avoided by the GP. We also found that the practice responded to Mr C and Ms C's complaint reasonably. We did not uphold either complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that he had been on two types of long term painkilling medication which the practice had failed to keep under regular review. Mr C was admitted to hospital as an emergency with symptoms of bleeding from his rectum. Mr C believed that he should not have been on both medications at the same time and that they caused his rectal bleeding. He felt that if the medication had been reviewed regularly then the bleeding would have been prevented.

We took independent advice from a general practitioner. We found that it was appropriate for the practice to have prescribed both types of medication for Mr C and that there was no requirement to keep the medication under regular review. It was also found that there was another cause of Mr C's bleeding which was not connected with the medication. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C received cataract surgery (surgery to correct clouding of the lens of the eye) and complained that the board did not provide her with reasonable follow- up care and treatment afterwards. Mrs C complained that board staff were not listening to her concerns about losing her sight.

We took independent advice from a consultant ophthalmologist (eye doctor). We found that the care and treatment Mrs C received was reasonable. We found that Mrs C had appropriate tests and there was no obvious cause for her symptoms. Ongoing investigations were planned and no failings were identified in the care provided during the period covered by Mrs C's complaint. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the health care and treatment he had received in prison. In particular, he complained about problems he had experienced in receiving all his prescribed medication within the prison regime. The board acknowledged that there had been problems with Mr C receiving all his prescribed medication and they suggested that he discuss this with the GP. Mr C was unhappy with this response and brought his complaint to us.

We took independent medical advice. We found that the prison healthcare team were responsive to Mr C's concerns, including altering his medication to ensure he receives all of it, and liaising with pain specialists. We considered this treatment to be reasonable and did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained that she was unreasonably refused treatment in A&E at University Hospital Ayr. She said that staff referred her back to her GP as she was already receiving treatment for the same medical condition.

We took independent advice from an experienced practitioner in emergency medicine. We found that Miss C was appropriately assessed in A&E and did not have a life threatening illness or injury that required hospital admission or referral to another hospital specialist. We found that the appropriate route for Miss C was to report her health problems to her GP. We did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his friend (Mr A) that the university failed to give reasonable consideration to the appeal he submitted on behalf of Mr A. Mr C complained that the university had failed to take account of, or give due weight to, the evidence he provided and that his correspondence had been ignored.

We found that Mr C's complaint had been dealt with in accordance with the Student Appeals Regulations. All of the available documentation and correspondence provided by Mr C had been carefully considered, but the view was taken that the terms for appeal had not been met. A letter was sent explaining this fully to Mr C. While it was clear that Mr C disagreed with this decision, there was no evidence to suggest that there had been failings or shortcomings in the appeal process. We did not uphold the complaint.