Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained about the medical treatment which his late friend (Mr A) received when a request was made for the out-of-hours (OOH) service GP to call at the house and assess Mr A. Mr C said that the OOH GP examined Mr A and decided that he should be admitted to hospital. However, they did not request an immediate ambulance and ordered another ambulance to arrive within a two hour timeframe. Mr C complained that the OOH service failed to appropriately assess Mr A and failed to call for an immediate ambulance.

We took independent medical advice from a GP. We found that the OOH GP had carried out a thorough assessment based on Mr A's medical history and his presenting symptoms. It was reasonable for them to arrive at a working diagnosis that Mr A had an infection and that he required a hospital admission. However, there was no evidence of sepsis and we found that it was appropriate to order an ambulance to arrive within a two hour timeframe as Mr A did not meet the criteria for a 999 ambulance. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained about the dental treatment he received over a number of years from a number of dentists. Mr C had recently moved to a new dental practice, where the dentist discovered that he had a blood clot in his lower jaw which had been present for some time and caused the bone to degrade. Mr C felt that the previous dentists should have discovered this at an earlier stage.

We took independent advice from a dentist. We found that there was no evidence that Mr C had reported any problems with his lower jaw, or that the lower teeth were unstable. We found that Mr C had had reasonable assessments in view of his reported symptoms over a number of consultations. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the board failed to ensure a reasonable standard of communication with herself and her late husband (Mr A). Mr A had been diagnosed with cancer, and Mrs C complained that the communication about his diagnosis, prognosis and treatment options was poor and that, as such, Mrs C and Mr A were unable to make an informed decision about the treatment options offered.

We took independent advice from an oncology (cancer) nurse and from an adviser who specialises in the care of the elderly. We found that board staff discussed treatment options and potential risks in a reasonable way, and that the records suggested that Mr A understood the nature of his condition and treatment options. We also found that staff followed the relevant General Medical Council Guidance in this respect, and that they acted reasonably in respecting Mr A's stated preferences for information and his decision-making ability. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained to us that the practice had failed to provide appropriate care and treatment to her late daughter (Miss A). Miss A had attended the practice with her partner and had reported symptoms of severe headaches, tiredness and constantly dropping items from her left hand. The GP took Miss A's blood pressure and gave her a vitamin injection. Miss A died at home the following day.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser. We found that the doctor should have arranged further investigations of Miss A's weakness and dropping items with her left hand as this was a new symptom. The doctor should have arranged for an urgent review by a stroke specialist to establish if there were signs of a Transient Ischaemic Attack (a mini stroke) which was a risk factor for subsequent stroke or myocardial infarction (heart attack). However, we found that the doctor had carried out a reasonable assessment and examination which was in line with national guidance. There was no indication at that time that Miss A required an urgent hospital admission. Miss A had a complex medical history and her symptoms of high blood pressure, headache and tiredness were longstanding.

On balance, we took the view that the doctor provided reasonable treatment and we did not uphold the complaint. Whilst we did not uphold the complaint we provided feedback to the doctor that they should review the standard of their record-keeping and refresh their knowledge about the presenting symptoms of a Transient Ischaemic Attack.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care and treatment his late wife (Mrs A) received at University Hospital Crosshouse. In particular, Mr C complained that Mrs A's medication had been changed and that she had not been provided with a reasonable standard of clinical care and treatment during two admissions to the hospital.

We took advice from a consultant hepatologist and gastroenterologist (a  specialist in the diagnosis and treatment of disorders of the digestive tract and liver). We found that it had been reasonable to have treated Mrs A with strong immunosuppressants (a drug that can suppress or prevent the immune response) and that the change in her medication was reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

In relation to both of Mrs A's hospital admissions, we found that the management of her care and treatment had been reasonable. We also noted that, during her first admission, Mrs A was booked in for an ultrasound scan as an out-patient, with an ear, nose and throat review afterwards. We considered that this action was reasonable and in line with national guidelines. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that Blue Business Water had failed to investigate his complaint adequately.

We found that Mr C had been given incorrect advice by Blue Business Water staff, leading to some confusion on the part of Mr C about monies he was due to pay to Scottish Water. However, we found that Blue Business Water had admitted this error and had made an offer of compensation. On balance, we considered that Blue Business Water's investigation of Mr C's complaint had been reasonable, and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C was a PhD student at the university. She complained that the university unreasonably withdrew her PhD registration, and that they failed to follow the appeals process appropriately.

We found that the university had the authority to terminate a student’s PhD registration and that, ultimately, it was the academic judgement of university staff to do so in Ms C’s case, despite her disagreement with that judgement. By law, the SPSO must not investigate the exercise of academic judgement and, therefore, we could not reach a finding on this part of Ms C’s complaint.

In relation to the appeals process, we found that the university had no appeal regulations to cover Ms C’s specific situation, which was the withdrawal of her registration. However, they had regulations dealing with appeals on examiners’ decisions in relation to research degrees. Given that the context stated in the regulations was decisions on student assessment, progression and awards, they interpreted these regulations to cover Ms C’s situation. We noted that Ms C disagreed with the university’s interpretation of their regulations. We found that their interpretation was reasonable in the circumstances. Given this, and the evidence of the university’s formal communication with Ms C, we considered that the university followed the appeals process appropriately. We did not uphold Ms C’s complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained about his university’s handling of a personal circumstances application and academic appeals. Mr C said there had been breaches of university regulations.

We found no evidence of breaches of university regulations. We considered that Mr C disagreed with the academic judgement of staff assessing his work, and he disagreed with the decisions taken by the relevant committees and university staff about his personal circumstances application and academic appeals. However, his disagreement with the university’s interpretation of his evidence and their decisions was not evidence of an administrative failing on their part. We did not uphold Mr C’s complaints.

Summary

Ms C complained about the university’s handling of her complaint, in particular that the university did not deal with all elements of her complaint, did not use all the supporting evidence she supplied, and wrote selective responses to the concerns she raised.

We found that the university identified several key points of complaint, which related to the key points Ms C raised in her complaint to them. The university dealt with each of these points, and considered all supporting evidence Ms C provided. While the university may not have included in their letter to Ms C every detail of the supporting evidence they considered, they included what they believed would explain the reasons for their decisions. The university carried out a thorough investigation and also made recommendations to remedy Ms C’s situation and to improve their service. Therefore, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) made inaccurate statements about him in a letter. Mr C disagreed with views expressed by prison staff that were repeated in the letter.

We found that records provided by the SPS supported the content of the letter. While we noted Mr C’s disagreement with the opinions of SPS staff as repeated in the letter and Mr C’s reasons for disagreeing, his disagreement was not itself evidence of maladministration on the part of the SPS. We, therefore, did not uphold Mr C’s complaint.