Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of an application for a waste management facility. Mr C believed that the council had not followed relevant legislation and procedures in dealing with the application as an urgent matter at a meeting of the full council and had unreasonably allowed costs and the business case to be introduced as material considerations in the determination of the application. Following the council's decision to approve the application, Mr C corresponded with a senior member of council staff who he considered had unreasonably refused to answer his questions.

We found that, as required by the relevant legislation, in the minutes of the council meeting the council had recorded the reasons for the convenor being of the opinion that the application should be considered as a matter of urgency and that the procedures Mr C had referred to had not been relevant in the circumstances of the consideration of the application. We found that it was reasonable, in the context of the application, for costs to have been introduced as material considerations. We could see no evidence that the business case had been introduced as a material consideration. We also considered that the senior member of staff's response to Mr C had effectively answered his questions. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Ms C complained that the housing association had failed to take adequate steps to address cold and damp in her property. She also said that they had failed to handle an insurance claim properly and that they had not responded to her complaints approriately.

We found that Mrs C wanted us to investigate issues with the association dating back a number of years and it was explained to her that this was not possible. We found that Ms C's latest complaint had been responded to fully and timeously, including a meeting with the association's Depute Director. Some of the issues Ms C was raising pre-dated the introduction of the model complaints handling procedure, and the association were able to evidence that their practice and policy had changed substantially in this regard. The association acknowledged delays in the handling of Ms C's insurance claim, however, they were able to show that these were down to failings on the part of the insurance company and the length of time which had passed before Ms C made the claim. The investigation showed that the association had pursued the claim diligently, including raising formal complaints about the delay. Overall we found the association had acted reasonably. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained to us that the practice had failed to provide her with appropriate care and treatment. She had reported to her GP that she was feeling down since the death of a relative and that she had self harmed. She was also concerned about a mouth infection. Mrs C said that the GP showed no interest, telling her to attend a dentist for the mouth problem and that she should wait for contact from the mental health services, who were already in contact with Mrs C. The GP told Mrs C that it was her responsibility to chase up the mental health services.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser. We found that it was appropriate for the GP to have referred Mrs C to her dentist as it would not be within a GP's remit to treat patients with dental problems. We also found that, when Mrs C attended the GP, there was no clinical indication for an immediate referral to the mental health services. The department within the mental health services which Mrs C was already attending operated a self-referral facility and there was no need for the GP to make a formal referral. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment provided to her late grandfather (Mr A) at Ninewells Hospital. Mr A was admitted to hospital and treated for sepsis (a blood infection). It was initially thought that this was caused by a chest infection but investigation showed that the source was Mr A's gallbladder. Mrs C complained that staff had not listened to family concerns about the source of the infection and that this had affected his treatment. Mrs C was concerned that the placement of a drain or other treatment was unreasonably delayed and that an appropriate scan had not been done. Mrs C considered that a different approach could have prevented Mr A's death.

We took independent advice from a consultant interventional radiologist (a clinician who would place a drain in the gallbladder) and a consultant physician (a senior doctor). We found that Mr A had received appropriate treatment and investigation of his symptoms. The adviser indicated that staff were aware that the gallbladder could be the source of infection and that there were no unreasonable delays in the particular circumstances of Mr A's case. We considered that earlier placement of a drain would not have resulted in a different outcome for Mr A. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C, who works for an advocacy and support service, complained to us on behalf of her client (Mrs B) about the care and treatment Mrs B's late father (Mr A) received from the board.

Mr A requested medical assistance at his home as he was feeling breathless and asthmatic. An advanced nurse practitioner (ANP) attended Mr A in the early hours of the morning. After carrying out an assessment, the ANP concluded that Mr A's symptoms were consistent with pneumonia (an infection of the lungs). The ANP provided treatment and advised Mr A to visit the health centre later that day for further review.

When Mr A presented at the health centre, his condition was noted to have worsened and he was subsequently referred to hospital. On arrival at the hospital Mr A suffered a cardiac arrest and died.

Mrs C complained that the board unreasonably delayed in referring Mr A to hospital and that they should have requested an air ambulance rather than travel by ferry and road.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser. We found that the ANP carried out a thorough assessment of Mr A's symptoms and that his diagnosis was appropriate. We found that it was not clinically indicated that an earlier referral to hospital was required. We also considered that the board's decision to transfer Mr A by ambulance on the ferry was safer and faster than an air ambulance. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care and treatment he received in relation to a suspected hernia (a condition where an internal part of the body pushes through a weakness in the muscle or surrounding tissue wall) whilst he was in prison. In particular, that there were delays in being seen by his GP, being referred for an ultrasound scan (a scan that uses sound waves to create images of organs and structures inside the body), being referred for surgery and concerns over his prescribed medication. Mr C also complained that he was not given a long-term sick line after an initial sick line expired.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that the time Mr C had to wait for appointments with his GP was reasonable. We also found that he was referred for an ultrasound scan and surgery within a reasonable amount of time and that his medication was reviewed appropriately. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

In relation to Mr C's sick line, we found that it would be reasonable to expect that he would be able to attend classes and carry out light duties whilst waiting for surgery and, therefore, we considered that the GP's decision to refuse a sick line was appropriate. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained about the treatment she received at Wishaw General Hospital when she attended the emergency department (ED) after a road traffic accident.

We took independent advice from a consultant in emergency medicine. We found that Ms C had been correctly triaged (a process in which things are ranked in terms of importance or priority) when she attended the ED, that the history taking had been of a good standard, the examination carried out was thorough and of a good standard and the treatment was reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C attended the prison health service on a number of occasions with chest infections and high blood pressure. He complained that he did not receive appropriate medication and that there were delays in being referred to specialists.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser. We found that Mr C had been assessed and treated appropriately. We also considered that appropriate referrals had been made, and that the waiting times for appointments were normal. We noted that there had been a delay in discussing x-ray results with Mr C, but the board had apologised for this and had provided evidence of improvements in their recording and checking system, to prevent this from happening again.

We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Miss C raised a complaint about the care and treatment she had received from her dentist over an extended period of time. Miss C had suffered from pain in one of her lower teeth and was advised she would require root canal treatment. Miss C continued to be in pain; the treatment had to be repeated and also caused problems with an adjacent tooth. Miss C said she was told the tooth required extraction and was referred to the dental hospital for further treatment. Miss C was dissatisfied with the way the dentist managed her dental care.

We took independent advice from a dentist. We found that the dental treatment which Miss C received was appropriate and in accordance with usual practice. The symptoms which Miss C had reported were uncertain, therefore a period of monitoring was required. The suggestion by the dentist for root canal treatment or extraction was reasonable in view of the dental records and x-rays which were taken. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the board had refused her request for a genital cosmetic surgery procedure.

We took independent advice from a consultant gynaecologist (a specialist in the health of the female reproductive systems). We found that the board had appropriate guidelines in place for consideration of such requests and that Ms C did not meet the criteria for surgery. We did not uphold the complaint.