Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Ms C complained about the care and treatment that her late mother (Mrs A) received at Monklands Hospital. Mrs A was admitted to A&E and was diagnosed with a urine infection. Hospital staff expressed concern over her condition and offered admission to the hospital but Mrs A declined as she thought she only had a urine infection. A week later, as Mrs A's symptoms did not improve, she was seen at home by a doctor. A large mass was identified in her pelvis and there was concern that she may have had a stroke. Mrs A was subsequently admitted to hospital where her stroke diagnosis was confirmed with a scan. Mrs A fell out of bed twice while in the hospital, the second time fracturing her hip which required surgery. After recovering from surgery, she was transferred to another hospital which catered for elderly patients. Mrs A was later discharged and died a few months later.

Ms C complained that Mrs A had not been properly assessed when she was first admitted to A&E and that Mrs A was not given proper rehabilitation support or physiotherapy following her stroke. Ms C was also concerned that the care Mrs A received after her hip fracture was unreasonable. Finally, Ms C complained that communication between the hospital and Mrs A's family was poor.

We took independent advice from a consultant geriatrician, a chartered physiotherapist and a registered nurse. We found that Mrs A's initial assessment had been thorough, and a reasonable diagnosis had been made. We also found that her rehabilitation and physiotherapy had been reasonable but that it had been limited by Mrs A's inability to participate due to her condition. Similarly, her care after she fractured her hip had been appropriate and we found that, although efforts had been made to prevent her fall, it had not been possible to do so. While communication with Mrs A had not always met her and her family's needs, we found that it had been clear and reasonable. For these reasons, we did not uphold Ms C's complaints.

Summary

Ms C complained that the medical practice wrongly provided her with the flu vaccination a number of years ago and that, as a result, she suffered from numerous medical conditions. These included brain damage, multiple sclerosis, uveitis (inflammation in the eye), reactive arthritis and facial disfigurement. Ms C was concerned that she had not been advised of the risks or potential side effects of the vaccination.

We took independent advice from a GP and found that it was appropriate for the practice to have offered Ms C the vaccination as she suffered from asthma. There was nothing in Ms C's medical records that showed she was suffering from any medical conditions which would have prevented her from receiving the flu vaccination. We also noted that Ms C had signed the consent form for the vaccination at the time. In addition, Ms C's later health issues were not recognised as being attributed side effects from the vaccination. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who works for an advice and support agency, complained to us on behalf of his client (Mrs A) that her GP practice failed to provide her with appropriate medical treatment for a painful shoulder. Mrs A asked the practice to give her a steroid injection as her frozen shoulder was causing her pain and distress but was referred to physiotherapy who would decide whether or not to provide the injection. Mrs A was unhappy as she had been given the steroid injection by the practice the year before.

We took independent advice from a GP and found that the practice had provided a reasonable level of care. Although some practices can administer steroid injections to patients if they have additional training, there is no requirement for them to do so. We found that the practice had acted reasonably by asking Mrs A to attend physiotherapy and that they would determine if it was appropriate to administer a steroid injection. We also found that the practice had acted reasonably by prescribing painkilling medication to Mrs A in order to address her symptoms. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that his dentist had failed to provide him with appropriate dental treatment. In particular Mr C felt that his dentist had taken a radiograph which was not required and that they had tried to promote the use of private dental treatment over NHS treatment.

We took independent advice from an adviser in general dentistry and found that the dentist had acted in accordance with the national guidance for taking radiographs. The radiographs indicated that there was decay present in Mr C's teeth and that the dentist had suggested appropriate treatment to be carried out. The records also contained evidence of discussions between the dentist and Mr C where it was explained what treatment was available on either NHS dental treatment or private dental treatment. There was no evidence to suggest that the dentist had promoted private dental care. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C visited her GP practice a number of times as she had concerns about a loss of appetite and unexplained weight loss. The practice carried out blood tests, and referred Ms C for an x-ray and an ultrasound. When these tests reported as normal, the practice referred Ms C to a gastroenterologist (a doctor specialising in the treatment of conditions affecting the liver, intestine and pancreas). Ms C complained that the practice unreasonably delayed in investigating her weight loss.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that the practice carried out the relevant tests and referred Ms C to gastroenterology at the appropriate time. The practice acted appropriately and did not delay in investigating Ms C's weight loss. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C, a prisoner, complained to the board that his prescription of pregabalin (a medication used to treat anxiety and nerve pain) was not reinstated. This medication is commonly misused in the prison environment and his prescription was stopped after he was found giving his medication to another prisoner.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that the decision not to reinstate Mr C's medication was reasonable. Due to his history of drug misuse, the adviser considered that a prescription for pregabalin would potentially increase the risk of overdose, particularly as he was already on other medications. We found that the board had also offered Mr C reasonable alternative medication to treat his anxiety and nerve pain. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained about the care and treatment provided to her mother (Mrs A) at her GP practice. Miss C was concerned that the practice were not addressing Mrs A's health problems or taking into account her fear of medical situations. Miss C had power of attorney for Mrs A and complained that the practice provided Mrs A with unreasonable treatment and that they were not keeping her informed of Mrs A's health care.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that the practice had completed a full assessment of Mrs A and a full advanced care plan was done. Mrs A was seen on a house call, as requested, and appropriate treatment was provided. There had also been communication between the practice and other professionals regarding Mrs A's healthcare. We considered that the practice provided Mrs A with appropriate care and treatment, and therefore, did not uphold this aspect of Miss C's complaint.

In relation to Miss C's complaint about the practice failing to keep her informed, we found that at the time of Miss C's complaint, the practice held a letter confirming that Mrs A did have capacity. A subsequent assessment confirmed she lacked capacity, but the practice had not been aware of that at the time of the complaint, nor had they been aware of the power of attorney. We found that the practice acted appropriately in maintaining Mrs A's confidentiality until such time as it was brought to their attention that she no longer had capacity and Miss C had power of attorney. We did not uphold this aspect of Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the practice had not provided her with reasonable care and treatment when she raised concerns about her skin condition. We took independent advice from a GP adviser. We found that the GPs at the practice had taken Mrs C's concerns seriously and that they had made reasonable and appropriate referrals to several specialists. We found that they had sent samples to a microbiology laboratory to be tested and that they had communicated thoroughly with the specialists regarding Mrs C's symptoms. We also found that the practice staff had communicated appropriately with Mrs C during consultations and when advising her of her diagnosis, and that the prescribed medications were appropriate. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Miss C was a student on a university course that involved professional placement. Miss C felt that she was not supported on the course, both generally and for her additional learning needs. She was unhappy as she felt that the university did not help her find placements, and that they would not count a placement she had already completed towards her course. Finally, Miss C was not happy with how the university handled her complaint.

We looked at all the evidence provided to us by both Miss C and the university. In relation to general support for Miss C, we found that certain processes could have been handled better, and we gave the university feedback on this. However, we noted that these issues were remedied either at the time or as a result of Miss C's complaint to the university. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

We had some concerns about how the university dealt with specific aspects of Miss C's support for additional learning needs, and we made the university aware of our concerns. However, we did not find evidence that the university failed to provide the support that was agreed. We did not uphold this complaint.

In relation to course placements, we found that the university acted reasonably. The course handbook was clear that students were responsible for finding their own placements and the placement that Miss C had already completed did not meet the requirements to be counted. Therefore, we did not uphold either aspect of this complaint.

Finally, we found that the university's handling of Miss C's complaint was reasonable and we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mrs C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of her client (Mr A). Mr A, a postgraduate student, became the subject of two misconduct investigations by the university. The first was about several allegations of misconduct related to Mr A's behaviour (case A). The second related to an allegation of academic misconduct in a paper published by Mr A at a conference (case B). Following investigation, both cases were upheld by the respective conduct investigators and both were referred to a student disciplinary committee (SDC). Following a hearing, the SDC upheld case B and most of the allegations under case A. The SDC decided to exclude Mr A permanently from the university, with no eligibility for re-admittance on any course or degree programme.

Mrs C complained that the university's investigation of both cases was unreasonable, as important aspects of the process were unfair, perverse, irrational or arbitrary. Mrs C also complained that the conduct of the SDC and the disciplinary penalty imposed were unfair. Amongst other things, she raised concerns that:

Mr A was not offered an interview during the investigation into case B;

the SDC hearing went ahead despite Mr A submitting a medical certificate stating he was unfit to work;

several witnesses who had been asked to attend the SDC (to support case A) decided at a late stage not to attend; and

the SDC did not allow Mr A to have a translator or take into account that he speaks English as a second language.

We found that Mr A received adequate notice of the allegations, and had a reasonable opportunity to respond. The evidence provided by the university showed that the investigators had taken into account relevant evidence and given detailed reasons for their decision, which were shared with Mr A before the hearing. We noted that the university's policy did not specifically set out how they would deal with requests for postponing an SDC hearing (for example on medical grounds), or how they would take into account students' individual needs in considering requests for additional support (such as the use of a translator). However, in this case we considered the evidence indicated that Mr A received a fair hearing, particularly as there was a dual language speaker available at the hearing to assist with translation issues. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints.