Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Ms C complained to us that the practice had failed to provide appropriate care and treatment to her when she reported symptoms of altered bowel habit. When she was referred to hospital cancer specialists after a period of some months it was established that she had bowel cancer. Ms C belived that the practice should have referred her to the hospital cancer specialists earlier and that the diagnosis would have been reached sooner.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser and concluded that there were no delays in the practice making a referral for a specialist hospital opinion. Ms C had attended the practice on a number of occasions with a number of physical and psychological symptoms and initially it was felt that a referral to a respiratory clinician was appropriate. However, when Ms C continued to report different symptoms it was then appropriate for a referral to be made to the hospital cancer specialists. We found this to be reasonable and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care and treatment his late mother (Mrs A) received at Queen Elizabeth University Hospital. Mrs A suffered from kidney failure. Mr C complained that her high blood pressure was not properly managed and that the care and treatment provided to her during three hospital admissions was not of a reasonable standard.

We took independent advice from a consultant nephrologist (a consultant who specialises in the kidneys). We found that Mrs A's blood pressure was managed appropriately, and that the care and treatment provided to her when she was an in-patient was reasonable. We did not uphold these aspects of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained that a nurse did not provide him with an appropriate level of information when notifying him of his mother's admission to hospital. Based on the evidence available, we found that the level of information provided to Mr C was appropriate. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the practice failed to provide a reasonable standard of medical care and treatment to her late father (Mr A). Mr A attended appointments at the practice over a period of two months. Mr A was initially referred to hospital by the practice to be assessed for deep-vein thrombosis (DVT, a blood clot that develops within a deep vein in the body) and was prescribed medication. The results of the ultrasound scan taken at the hospital did not indicate DVT and the medication was stopped, however, Mr A's condition deteriorated. He attended two more appointments at the practice but died of a pulmonary embolism (a blocked blood vessel in the lungs) a few days after his final appointment. Ms C said that the practice had failed to see that Mr A's symptoms indicated DVT and believed that his death could have been prevented. Ms C also complained that the practice failed to respond to her complaint in a reasonable way.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that the medical care and treatment was of a reasonable standard based on the evidence provided and the information available to the practice at the time in question. We also noted that the practice fully addressed the issues raised and took account of the clinical evidence available when responding to Ms C's complaint. Therefore, we did not uphold Ms C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the prison healthcare centre's decision to stop his suboxone medication (medication used to treat opium addictions) was unreasonable. A prison nurse reported that Mr C appeared to act suspiciously when they were administering his suboxone medication. They did not consider that Mr C gave them an adequate opportunity to confirm that the medication had been taken correctly. His medication was subsequently stopped and he was later given methadone as an alternative opiate replacement therapy. Mr C disputed the nurse's allegation that he did not comply and brought his complaint to us.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that Mr C's suboxone was stopped as prison healthcare staff felt that he had not complied with the instructions set out in the contracts. Mr C had signed two contracts in relation to medication and one of these declared that he understood he would be taken off suboxone if caught or suspected of concealing medication. Healthcare staff suspected that he was concealing medication and they were, therefore, entitled to act on that suspicion if they felt that there was a risk of clinical harm to Mr C and/or the good order within the prison. The adviser raised no concerns about the decision taken to stop Mr C's suboxone and we considered that this decision was reasonable in light of Mr C's suspected non-compliance. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C attended his GP practice with symptoms of fatigue, reduced appetite and night sweats. Tests indicated an infection and Mr C was prescribed antibiotics and referred to hospital. Several weeks later, after discussing the matter with the GP, Mr C decided to cancel the hospital appointment offered. However, Mr C was unaware that the referral to hospital mentioned the possibility of serious pathology (red flag symptoms). When Mr C had the same symptoms a year later, an x-ray showed suspected cancer in his right lung and further tests showed stomach cancer.

Mr C complained that failings by the practice meant that he had been unable to make an informed decision about the initial referral the year before and that his life had been shortened considerably. Mr C complained that the practice failed to provide him with a reasonable standard of medical care.

We took independent advice from a GP. Overall, we found that the standard of medical care and treatment provided was reasonable. We were satisfied that Mr C had been investigated appropriately and that the tests taken were thorough. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that the board had unreasonably refused to accept referrals for his child (child A) to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS). There were concerns about child A's anxiety and that they possibly had symptoms of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Mr C felt that the board had not provided adequate reasons for the refusal and had based their decision on events of some years ago.

We took independent advice from an adviser in mental health services. We found that the board's decision that child A did not satisfy the criteria for CAMHS was reasonable. Whilst child A had displayed some symptoms, they were not persistent in nature and their condition was variable at times. We did not uphold the complaint. However, we provided the board with feedback that they should have provided Mr C with more clarity of the exact rasons why they felt a referral to the service was not appropriate at that time.

Summary

Ms C complained to us that the medical practice had failed to provide her with appropriate care and treatment when she reported problems with her mobility and that she was not sent for x-rays or scans in order to arrive at a diagnosis. Ms C had subsequently registered at a new practice where the staff quickly identified her problems and arranged x-rays which resulted in her undergoing two hip operations. Ms C felt the previous practice should have addressed her mobility problems a number of years ago.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser. We found that the practice had provided a reasonable level of care. When Ms C reported hip pain, she had x-rays taken and was referred for physiotherapy and provided with painkillers. From then until Ms C left the practice, we found that she did not report any additional symptoms or that her pain had deteriorated or worsened and, as a result, there was no requirement for the practice to undertake further investigations. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C paid a small amount of his college course fees late in the academic year, while around 95% of the fees remained unpaid six weeks before the end of the course. At that point, the college told Mr C that he would have to pay the fees. When he failed to do so, the college passed the debt to a recovery agency. Mr C complained that the college unreasonably demanded that he pay his course fees and referred his debt to a recovery agency. He also complained about the college's handling of his complaint.

Mr C said that he had agreed a final payment plan with the college which they did not honour. We found that the college's record showed that Mr C made several different payment plans previously, but there was no evidence that he agreed the final payment plan. Mr C signed an enrolment form that committed him to abiding by college rules, being liable for payment of his course fees, and understanding that if he did not pay, the college would instruct a debt recovery agency to collect payment. Debt recovery information was also covered in the college's Student Fees and Debt Recovery Policy. The college gave Mr C several opportunities to pay until they passed his debt to the recovery agency.

In regards to complaints handling, we found that the college's response to Mr C's complaint referred to the evidence that they had gathered and provided him with a copy of this evidence where appropriate. The response dealt with the issues thoroughly and we found it to be reasonable.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to follow their policies and procedures before raising court action against him for recovery of rent arrears. He complained that the council had failed to take his family circumstances into account when deciding to raise court action against him.

We found that the council had followed their policies and procedures, with one minor exception for which the council had already apologised. Mr C had not made any contribution to his rent over more than two months, and although he had offered to pay some rent at the end of the third month of the tenancy, we found that the council were entitled to find this offer unreasonable. We also noted that the council had agreed to review the court action if regular payments were commenced. We did not find any evidence of maladministration and we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained to the council about how the proceeds from the sale of her mother's house were apportioned between Mrs C's family and care home fees. The matter was considered by a complaints review committee (CRC), after which Mrs C brought her complaints to us.

Mrs C complained that the council handled the CRC unreasonably. She had concerns about the CRC panel's interaction with the social work representatives who attended the hearing and she felt that these interactions called the CRC panel's impartiality into question. The CRC procedure did, however, allow the panel to ask questions of those present at the CRC, which included Mrs C and the social work department. We did not consider the evidence indicated that the CRC was handled unreasonably. We did not uphold the complaint.

Mrs C also complained that the council unreasonably failed to provide adequate reasons for the CRC's decision not to uphold her underlying complaint. Although we acknowledged that the report they had produced was concise, it did detail the two specific points of complaint that Mrs C had agreed to in advance of the hearing. We also felt that their explanation, while brief, was clear that they did not agree with the case Mrs C had put forward. We did not uphold the complaint.