Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Ms C complained about the assessment of her father (Mr A)'s capacity by old age psychiatry staff who visited him at home and while he was an in-patient at University Hospital Crosshouse. She was also concerned that the assessment of the level of care Mr A required was unreasonable.

We took independent advice from a consultant in old age psychiatry. We found that Mr A's capacity had been assessed regularly and that the assessments themselves reached reasonable conclusions. Therefore, we did not uphold Ms  C's complaints. While we found that the assessment of Mr A's care requirements was appropriate, it was noted that Ms C and her family appeared to have received somewhat confusing information from social work staff regarding the level of care needed. We provided feedback to the board on this matter.

Summary

Mr C, who is an advocacy and support worker, complained on behalf of his client (Ms B) that the council unreasonably failed to provide her child (child A) with a Self Directed Support package (SDS, a package that allows individuals to choose how they receive their social care and support). Ms B was informed that it was likely child A would qualify for SDS but at the end of the eligibility assessment it was determined that they did not meet the criteria. Ms B was told by her social worker that the eligibility criteria had changed and child A did not meet these requirements. Ms B complained to the council about the change in criteria and that her expectations were unfairly raised. The council responded by explaining that the criteria had not changed and that this was incorrect information provided by the social worker. They also noted that the social worker did explain that any award given is always dependent on the outcome of the assessment. Ms B was unhappy with this response and Mr C brought her complaint to us.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the criteria had not changed and that the social worker involved appeared to have misunderstood the content of an email from the team manager about eligibility criteria. We noted that the council had acknowledged this failing and apologised to Ms B for providing her with incorrect information. We found that child A had been assessed appropriately and against the SDS eligibility criteria set out in the council's guidance. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. However, we were concerned that Ms B's expectations of the SDS outcome had been unfairly raised and we asked the council to reflect upon this for future learning.

Summary

Mr C complained about the service he received from his housing association. He had experienced ongoing issues with his sleep and mental health as a result of noise generated by an extractor fan in the bathroom of the property below him. The property below was privately owned and rented out to tenants. Mr C complained that the housing association unreasonably declined to take appropriate action to address the noise and that the service provided by the association deteriorated after he disclosed his mental health issues to them.

We found that the association liaised with Mr C, the property's owner and the council's noise and environmental health teams to try and reach a solution. The setting of the extractor fan was adjusted but Mr C said that the noise was still impacting on him. The owner of the flat below decided not to allow any further access to the property as the council's environmental team found no issues with the fan. The association no longer had access to the flat below and stated that there was no further action that they could carry out. We considered that the association had taken reasonable steps to resolve the situation and that the owner of the flat below was within their rights to deny access. We also noted that the association's property maintenance manager had inspected the ventilation system and found no faults. Therefore, we considered that the housing association had acted reasonably and did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

In relation to the service provided by the association, we found no evidence to suggest that the service had deteriorated after Mr C disclosed his mental health issues. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf of her late mother (Ms A) that the housing association failed to take reasonable action or provide an appropriate level of support in response to reports of anti-social behaviour. Ms A had made a number of complaints about anti-social noise caused by her upstairs neighbour. The association issued a warning to the neighbour after one report but did not take any further action following others. Mrs C felt that the association's lack of action in response to anti-social behaviour caused Ms A to complete suicide.

We found that the association had taken action against the neighbour on the one occasion that they had evidence of anti-social behaviour occurring. Given the type of anti-social behaviour, we considered that an initial warning was appropriate and in line with the housing association's internal policies. The association attempted to corroborate other reports of anti-social behaviour but were unable to do so. Therefore, we considered that it would not have been appropriate for them to take further action on these occasions. We also noted that the reports of anti-social behaviour increased within a relatively short timeframe and we found no evidence to suggest that the housing association would not have escalated the measures taken and offered further support had the incidents continued. We considered that the housing association had acted reasonably and in line with relevant procedures. Therefore, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C's aunt (Ms A) was transferred to a care home and was provided full funding on an interim basis while Ms C applied for Financial and Welfare Guardianship. The partnership began a financial assessment to calculate Ms A's care costs. Once guardianship was approved, the partnership did not complete the financial assessment as they had concerns about Ms C's decision to keep Ms A's property. Ms C planned to use this property as a base for visits to Ms A, as most of her remaining family lived in another country. The partnership made an Adult Support and Protection (ASP) referral but before this procedure concluded, Ms C decided to sell the property as she felt pressured to do this in order for the assessment to progress. Ms C complained that the partnership unreasonably delayed in completing a financial assessment and that they failed to appropriately assess the finances in line with their obligations.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the partnership acted reasonably in making an ASP referral as it was the correct procedure to follow given the concerns that they had. The adviser noted that communication between the partnership and Ms C could have been better, which may have aided a swifter resolution. However, the financial assessment was appropriate and Ms C made the decision to sell the property before the ASP procedures were concluded. Therefore, we did not uphold Ms C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his wife (Mrs A) that the ambulance service unreasonably failed to dispatch an ambulance following an emergency call and that they did not handle his complaint reasonably.

Mrs A had been diagnosed with a tumour at the rear of her brain and was waiting for an operation. Mr C said that Mrs A was told to call the emergency services if she experienced certain symptoms. When Mrs A subsequently experienced these symptoms, Mr C called the emergency services and spoke to a call handler who referred Mrs A to NHS 24. Mr C was unhappy that the ambulance service failed to dispatch an ambulance following the emergency call.

We took independent advice from a consultant in emergency medicine. We found that the information reported during the emergency call did not confirm that Mrs A had an immediately life-threatening condition, which would have required the dispatch of an ambulance as an emergency. The adviser noted that the decision to refer the call to NHS 24 in order to get a more detailed assessment of the situation by a clinically trained person was reasonable. We found that the decisions taken by the ambulance service were reasonable and therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

In relation to complaints handling, we found that the ambulance service had performed a detailed audit of the emergency call and that the member of staff involved had appropriately reflected on the call. We were satisfied that the complaint investigation carried out was reasonable and that the response to Mr C addressed the points he had raised. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his late wife (Mrs A) about the treatment she received at Monklands Hospital. Mrs A attended her GP with pain in her right chest wall and was referred to hospital for an x-ray which found no significant abnormalities. Mrs A later attended her GP with worsening shoulder pain and her GP sent an urgent referral to the orthopaedics department (the branch of medicine concerned with the musculoskeletal system). This referral was downgraded by the board from urgent to routine. Mrs A was later diagnosed with bone and liver cancer. Mr C complained that the board unreasonably failed to check the x-ray for signs of cancer and that they unreasonably downgraded the urgent referral to routine.

We took independent advice from a consultant radiologist. We found that Mrs A had been referred for an x-ray due to an injury and that an x-ray is not the correct test to reliably pick up on a tumour. We also noted that the x-ray had showed a subtle change in bony texture of the clavicle (collar bone). As Mrs A had been referred for an x-ray due to an injury and the abnormality was so subtle, it would have been unreasonable to expect a radiologist to pick this up. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

In relation to the referral downgrade, we took independent advice from a consultant physician. We found that the orthopaedic referral letter did not suggest any need for the appointment to be urgent, no mention of cancer and no indication that the problem was considered to be anything other than shoulder pain that had not responded to physiotherapy. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the board unreasonably failed to provide him with appropriate care and treatment for his prostate cancer. He said that a consultant urologist (a doctor who specialises in medicine focusing on diseases of the urinary tract and the male reproductive organs) at Hairmyres Hospital advised him that his cancer was confined to his prostate, that it was T3 (had grown through the prostate capsule, outwith the prostate and was just outside the prostate) and that a laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (removal of the prostate via a small incision using robotic surgery) was an appropriate treatment. The consultant referred Mr C to a second consultant urologist at another board. Mr C said that when he was seen by the second consultant, he was told that the surgery proposed was not appropriate.

We took independent advice from a consultant urologist. We found that the first consultant referring Mr C for consideration of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy was appropriate and was in keeping with the West of Scotland Management Guidelines for prostate cancer. We found that, ideally, the first consultant should have pointed out that in their opinion Mr C's disease was suitable for radical prostatectomy, but that the final decision on suitability for surgery lay with the surgeon performing the surgery. The adviser explained that the main issue was one of a difference in clinical opinion between surgeons, and not a change in the extent of Mr C's cancer during the time between his appointments. On balance, we did not consider that the board unreasonably failed to provide Mr C with approprite care and treatment for his prostate cancer, and we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Mr C also complained that the board unreasonably failed to arrange his referral for prostate surgery within a reasonable time and that they did not take the issue of the delay in arranging the referral appointment seriously. We found that the board had failed to respond to Mr C's phone calls about his referral and to take the issue of the delay seriously. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. We noted that the board had already apologised for this, and had taken steps to avoid this happening again in the future. We asked them to provide us with evidence of the action they had taken, however we made no further recommendations.

Summary

Mr C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of his client (Mr A) about the care and treatment he received at West Glasgow Ambulatory Care Hospital. Mr A was suffering from heart problems and was seen by a consultant cardiologist (a doctor who specialises in finding, treating and preventing diseases of the heart and blood vessels) and it was decided that no further investigations were appropriate. Mr C said that although Mr A continued to experience heart and chest pain, the board failed to take his concerns seriously and refused unreasonably to offer him appropriate treatment.

We took independent advice from a consultant cardiologist. We found that it was appropriate for the board not to investigate Mr A further as doctors had assessed the risks and benefits of more investigations and concluded, based on a number of points, that he should not be offered more. It was also noted that further cardiac investigations carried risks and could result in complications. We found that it was appropriate for no further tests to be carried out unless there was a solid indication to do so. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C, who works for an advocacy and support service, complained about the care and treatment provided to her client's late father (Mr A) at the Southern General Hospital. Mr A had terminal cancer and other serious conditions, including heart failure. Mr A was admitted to the hospital after becoming unwell following chemotherapy. Ms C complained that the medical care he received for his complex presentation was unreasonable and highlighted concerns about him being given penicillin when his medical records noted he was allergic to this antibiotic. Ms C also complained that nursing staff had not treated Mr A with dignity and respect, and that staff communication with the family had been unreasonable.

We took independent advice from a consultant physician and geriatrician (a doctor who specialises in medicine of the elderly). We found that the medical care provided to Mr A had been reasonable for his condition and that he had not been allergic to penicillin. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

We also took independent advice from a nursing adviser. We found that the nursing care provided to Mr A was reasonable and that there was no evidence that he was not cared for in a dignified manner. Consequently, we did not uphold this part of the complaint.

We found that there was evidence of reasonable communication with the family in the records. We did not uphold the complaint about communication with Mr A's family.