Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

A number of years ago Mrs C was diagnosed as suffering from pseudoseizures (episodes that resemble, and are often misdiagnosed as, epileptic seizures). However, after a referral to cardiology from her GP some years later, it was determined that she had a heart problem and required a pacemaker. Mrs C subsequently had a pacemaker fitted and said that, since then, she had not suffered any further seizures.

Mrs C said that there had been a failure to recognise that her problems could relate to her heart, despite being under the care of the board in between her diagnosis with pseudoseizures and the diagnosis of a heart condition. She complained to the board, who responded and said that they felt her condition had been treated reasonably. They said that, until Mrs C was referred to cardiology, there had been no reason to suspect that she had heart problems. Mrs C was unhappy with this response and brought her complaint to us. Mrs C complained that, over the number of years she was under their care, the board had failed to diagnose and treat her heart condition.

We took independent neurology advice. We found that Mrs C was experiencing 'faints, fits or other funny turns' which, according to the relevant Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) guidance, should prompt an electrocardiogram (ECG - a procedure used for measuring the electrical activity of the heart). We found that Mrs C was appropriately monitored with ECGs. For this reason, we did not uphold her complaint. We also noted that the ECGs, had not, in any event, revealed her heart problem, as only a prolonged recording would have been likely to have detected this.

Summary

Mr C, an MP, complained on behalf of his constituent (Mr B) about the lack of care provided to his late partner (Ms A) who had attended an out-of-hours service after reporting severe pain. Ms A was examined by the GP and sent home with laxatives (medication to help increase bowel movements). Ms A subsequently collapsed at home a short time later and died. Mr B obtained a copy of the death certificate which showed evidence of bowel obstruction. Mr B felt that due to the severity of the condition, the GP should have identified the problem and that the issue could have been rectified in hospital earlier.

We took independent advice from an adviser in general practice medicine and concluded that the GP had carried out an appropriate assessment of Ms A given her reported symptoms. She had a history of constipation and was on painkilling medication which would have contributed to her constipation. It would not have been appropriate to have prescribed additional painkillers as that would have worsened the constipation. We also found no evidence of bowel obstruction and, therefore, the decision to send Ms A home with laxatives to allow them time to take effect was reasonable. We found no medical requirement for a hospital admission at that time, and there was no information within the medical history or examination which would have alerted the GP to the subsequent events, or that the laxatives would not be effective. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care and treatment that his wife (Mrs A) received at Aberdeen Maternity Hospital. Mrs A called and was seen at the hospital over a number of weeks with symptoms, including bleeding, before she suffered a miscarriage at 20 weeks into her pregnancy. Mr C was concerned about the care she received and that alternative action could have prevented the miscarriage.

We took independent advice from a consultant obstetrician (a doctor who specialises in pregnancy, childbirth and the female reproductive system). We found that the care Mrs A received at the hospital was reasonable and that there was no treatment to prevent spontaneous miscarriage at that stage of a pregnancy. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment she received during out-patient consultations at University Hospital Crosshouse. Mrs C initially attended a consultation in the renal medicine department (department of medicine relating to the kidneys) and it was felt that her test results showed that she had sub-clinical hypothyroidism (a condition where thyroid stimulating hormone level is higher than normal). Mrs C was prescribed a small dose of medication to treat this. Mrs C subsequently attended a consultation in a different department. This department did not agree that Mrs C had sub-clinical hypothyroidism and recommended that the medication should be stopped. A review appointment was arranged for three months' time. Mrs C was unhappy with this decision and undertook to self-source a supply of thyroid medication. She attended a further consultation in the renal medicine department approximately a year later. At this time, Mrs C was advised to discontinue taking her self-sourced thyroid medication as it was considered that it was causing suppression of her thyroid stimulating hormone. Mrs C disagreed with the board's findings and explained that she felt better taking the thyroid medication, which she reported had also improved her kidney function. She complained to us that the board were not providing her with the medication she felt she needed. Mrs C also complained that she was unreasonably advised to stop taking her self-sourced thyroid medication.

We took indepdendent advice from a consultant physician. We found that the test results over a number of years did not show evidence of sub-clinical hypothyroidism. For this reason, we considered it was reasonable for the board to discontinue the medication and to advise Mrs C of the risks of continued use. In relation to Mrs C's consultation in the renal medicine department a year later, we found that it was reasonable for the board to recommend that Mrs C stop taking the medication. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that Clear Business Water overcharged him for water usage. He said that the meter reading showed a higher consumption of water usage than his previous readings. Mr C also complained that he was unfairly charged for a replacement water meter. Clear Business Water investigated this complaint but found no failings in terms of the charges applied.

Clear Business Water advised Mr C that higher water usage can indicate a leak. Mr C had his property checked but found no leaks and believed that his water meter was faulty. He agreed for his water meter to be removed for testing and was advised that he would have to pay for the new meter installation, if his old one was found to be in working order. An accuracy test was carried out and the results showed that there was no fault with the recording of water usage.

We found that whilst Clear Business Water had acknowledged that the increase in usage may suggest a fault, at no stage was it confirmed that the meter was faulty or that it was being replaced because of a fault. In addition, although a marked increase in water usage had been noted, this in itself was not evidence of a fault with the water meter.

In terms of the charge applied for the replacement water meter, we found that Clear Business Water had provided clear advice in that Mr C would need to pay a charge if the original water meter was tested and found to be recording accurately. We found that they acted reasonably and, therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C was a student on a taught postgraduate course. He complained that he did not receive reasonable supervision during his dissertation research project. Specifically, Mr C felt that his supervisor should have emailed feedback to him, and should have intervened when he experienced difficulties with his project.

We found that Mr C did not raise any concerns about supervision during the course. The course handbook was clear that students were responsible for raising concerns as soon as possible. While students were also responsible for developing a level of independence in their project and laboratory work, they should not hesitate to ask their supervisor for advice when necessary. In addition, students were responsible for arranging meetings with their supervisor at least every two weeks, if not weekly, and for keeping clear records of meetings with their supervisor. The handbook is clear in terms of student responsibilities and being proactive; and specifies the role of their supervisor in providing course-related support when asked.

We found no evidence that Mr C's supervisor failed to act in line with the course handbook. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C made a submission of an assignment to the university. Having submitted the assignment a year previously, and failed on that occasion, the university considered this to be his second submission of this work. When the second submission was also marked as a fail, Mr C was obliged to withdraw from his course, in line with university regulations.

Mr C complained that his second submission should not have been considered a second submission as his previous submission had been intended as a draft for feedback and his second submission had not been marked. We found that Mr C had not referred to his first submission as a draft until after he was aware it had been marked as a fail. We also found that he had not taken earlier opportunities to clarify that it had been intended as a draft. There was also evidence that the second submission had been marked. We did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Mr C wanted to progress from his current prison to the open estate (OE), with a view to getting parole and being released. His prison's risk management ream (RMT) decided that Mr C should first progress to the national top end (NTE - accommodation for low-supervision prisoners nearing the end of medium to long sentences). Mr C felt that the decision to not approve his application for the OE was unreasonable and he brought his complaint to us.

Mr C felt that he was ready for progression to the OE and that he was not given a chance to prove he had changed. We found that the RMT did not doubt the sincerity of Mr C's belief that he was ready. However, in considering all the information available to them, the RMT decided that Mr C would be progressed to the NTE where he would be given a chance to prove he had changed. The reasoning for this was that the NTE was a structured and supportive environment in which Mr C could practice appropriate coping and problem solving strategies. If successful in the NTE, Mr C would improve his chance of getting parole. We did not find evidence that the prison's actions in progressing Mr C to the NTE rather than the OE were unreasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council that they had failed to provide him with appropriate advice and support with respect to his housing and mental health concerns. In their response, the council explained their obligations with respect to housing matters and advised that, as Mr C had never presented as homeless or engaged with housing services, there was no service failing on their part. They acknowledged Mr C's circumstances and committed to provide a full assessment of Mr C's housing and mental health needs. Mr C was later evicted from his property and brought his complaint to us.

We agreed with Mr C that we would consider the actions and response of the council following receipt of his complaint and full disclosure of his circumstances. We considered the council had taken steps to try and offer Mr C advice and assistance with respect to his housing circumstances. The council had followed up on concerns with regard to Mr C's mental health and had made arrangements for a mental health social worker to meet with Mr C. However, this appointment was cancelled by Mr C at late notice.

We were satisfied that the council had taken appropriate steps to respond to Mr C's concerns, assess his circumstances and offer advice and access to the services which may be available to him. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C's two children are primary school pupils. Mr and Mrs C reported concerns to the school about on-going issues involving their children and another child. They decided to move their children to another school. Mr and Mrs C complained to the council for failing to take reasonable action in response to incidents involving their children and for failing to investigate their complaint in a fair and balanced way. The council explained that the other child had additional needs and that their behaviour towards Mr and Mrs C's children was not intended to be malicious or designed to bully them. Mr and Mrs C were unhappy with this response and brought their complaint to us.

We found that the school put in place the appropriate support to all children involved. We also noted that incidents involving the children were recorded and appropriate action was taken where necessary. With regards to the council's investigation of the complaint, we found that the council had appointed a teacher from another school as the investigating officer to ensure impartiality. We found the council's approach to their investigation to be well considered and reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr and Mrs C's complaints.