Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained that the council had unreasonably invoked their unacceptable actions policy (UAP - a policy that outlines how an organisation will approach situations where the behaviour of individuals using their service becomes unacceptable, including any actions the organistion will take to restrict contact from the individuals concerned). Mr and Mrs C were unhappy that their contact with the council had been restricted in this way.

The council are entitled to apply their UAP in the appropriate circumstances and we are not an appeal route for that decision. Rather, our role was to consider their administrative handling of the matter. The evidence indicated that the council's letters to Mr and Mrs C had highlighted the behaviour that was causing the council concern, enclosed copies of their UAP and told Mr and Mrs C that their contact may be restricted if that behaviour did not change. As Mr and Mrs C's behaviour continued unchanged, the council subsequently wrote to them confirming that their contact was being restricted. The council explained that they would review their decision in three months, although Mr and Mrs C could also ask them to review the decision.

The evidence indicated that Mr and Mrs C were given a chance to modify their behaviour before the council invoked their UAP. It also indicated that, once the decision to restrict their contact was made, the council's letters contained the relevant information detailed in the UAP. On that basis, we concluded that the council had made a decision they were entitled to have made and that there was no evidence of maladministration in their decision-making process. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained to the housing association that, prior to her agreeing to take up a tenancy, they failed to fully disclose the extent of the neighbours' anti-social behaviour, specifically relating to their barking dogs. She also complained that the association failed to take appropriate steps to address her complaints of anti-social behaviour by neighbours.

In their response to Miss C's complaint, the association explained that she was advised of the neighbouring dogs causing a nuisance, but that they had no other information or complaints regarding the extent of the dogs barking prior to her taking up the tenancy. They outlined that they had advised her that the neighbour was a private tenant and as such they had no power to take action.

Miss C was not satisfied with the association's response to her complaint. She considered that the association should have done more to manage the problems with respect to the barking dogs and associated disturbances with her neighbours. She brought her complaint to us.

We did not find any evidence that, prior to Miss C taking up her tenancy, the association had received complaints regarding barking dogs at neighbouring properties. Consequently, we did not consider that the association had unreasonably failed to provide her with important information prior to her taking up the tenancy.

In relation to the handling of Miss C's complaints, we found that Miss C was offered appropriate advice that the council were the appropriate body to take action in relation to disturbances relating to barking dogs. We considered that the association had provided Miss C with appropriate advice in the circumstances.

We found that the association had investigated Miss C's complaints of anti-social behaviour appropriately, in line with their anti-social behaviour policy, and had advised Miss C of the outcome on each occasion. As a result, we considered the association had carried out appropriate investigations.

We did not uphold Miss C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care that his wife (Mrs A) received as a patient at both the Western General Hospital and Astley Ainslie Hospital. Mr C was unhappy that Mrs A was occasionally attended to by male nurses. Mr C also felt that Mrs A was given unreasonably high doses of medication.

We took independent advice from a nurse. The adviser explained that male nurses routinely carry out the same care as female nurses, for both female and male patients. This includes personal care such as toileting and washing. The adviser reviewed Mrs A's medical records and found that it was reasonable in the circumstances for her to be attended to, on occasion, by male nurses. The adviser also found that Mrs A was not kept sedated and was given the recommended doses of medication. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that there was a delay in a scan taken of his chest area being formally reported at the Glasgow Royal Infirmary. Mr C had lung cancer and was undergoing treatment for this. At an appointment with a cancer specialist he reported symptoms of breathlessness and the specialist referred him for a scan and to a respiratory consultant. Mr C underwent the scan the same day as his respiratory appointment, at which point there was no formal report of his scan. The formal report was produced ten days later, and it was discovered that Mr C had a pulmonary embolism (blockage of a blood vessel in the lung). He was therefore immediately admitted to hospital for treatment. Mr C complained that the scan should have been checked and reported on the same day as it was taken, in order to ensure there were no significant problems.

We took independent advice from a consultant radiologist. We found that there are no specific standards for reporting scans and that there was not an unreasonable delay in Mr C's scan being reported. We also found that the area of pulmonary embolism shown on the scan was relatively small and would not have been recognised by a non-radiologist. We found it reasonable that the scan was not reviewed by a radiologist on the day it was taken and that the board had reasonable protocols in place to ensure significant pathology was related to clinicians in a timely manner. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the board had failed to provide her with reasonable treatment at the Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) service at Inverclyde Royal Hospital in relation to her balance problems. Mrs C considered that the problem was being caused by fluid in the tubes in her ears. She was referred to a number of clinicians in the ENT service, but they were unable to establish what was causing her balance problems.

We took independent advice from an ENT consultant. We found that staff in the ENT service had carried extensive tests and there was no evidence that Mrs C's balance problems were being caused by fluid in the tubes in her ears. Mrs C felt that some tests had not been carried out because of her age and because of cutbacks. We found that there was no evidence of this and we found that the investigations carried out by the board into the problem had been reasonable and appropriate. In addition, there had not been any unreasonable delays in carrying out the tests. In view of all of this, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C attended the plastic surgery clinic at Glasgow Royal Infirmary, after being referred by her GP because of concerns about changes to her breast implants and a discharge from her nipple. Ms C said that she had many symptoms and, after doing her own research, concluded that these were the consequence of problems with her breast implants. However, she complained that the consultant she saw failed to listen to her, and as a result, misdiagnosed her and referred her to a psychiatrist. Ms C said that she felt that she had no alternative but to pay to have her breast implants removed privately. She complained to the board who took the view that she had been treated reasonably, holistically and in accordance with usual practice. Ms C remained unhappy and brought her complaint to us.

We took independent advice from a consultant plastic surgeon. We found that the consultant at the clinic had spent a considerable time discussing Ms C's symptoms with her and examined her appropriately. However, as Ms C had expressed thoughts about self-harm, the consultant was duty bound to recommend and arrange for psychological assessment. They did not refuse to remove her implants but wanted to ensure that any treatable conditions or symptoms she was experiencing could be dealt with appropriately. The adviser confirmed that Ms C had been treated in accordance with current practice. For these reasons, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment provided to her late relative (Miss A). Miss A attended the GP practice with an abdominal swelling and was urgently referred to the gynaecology department at a hospital. Surgery was subsequently carried out to remove an ovarian cyst. Over the course of the following year, Miss A attended the practice on several occasions with various symptoms and ultimately attended the emergency department at a hospital. After various attendances at hospital, tests identified that Miss A had advanced cancer and she died within a few weeks. Mrs C believed that tests could have been carried out sooner if the practice had not ignored a family history of bowel cancer.

We took independent advice from GP adviser. We found that, prior to final visits to the practice, Miss A had not presented with symptoms that required urgent investigation or referral to a colorectal specialist (a doctor specialising in the colon and the rectum), in accordance with the relevant guidelines. We considered that there was no indication for genetic screening. We also found that it was reasonable of the practice to accept hospital staff's advice that the ovarian cyst that had been removed was non-cancerous and did not require follow-up. In light of these findings, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about the fact that his medical practice had not carried out a home visit. He had phoned twice on the same day with severe back pain. The duty GP made a diagnosis over the phone and recommended a course of action, but did not arrange a home visit. The next day, Mr C's back pain persisted and he experienced numbness after suffering a fall. The GP on duty that day arranged for a home visit to be carried out and Mr C was transferred to hospital and subsequently diagnosed with cauda equina syndrome (a disorder that affects the nerves). This required surgery which has left him with ongoing difficulties. Mr C feels that the consequences may not have been as severe had the original GP arranged for a home visit to be carried out. In addition to this, Mr C complained about some aspects of the practice's complaints handling.

We considered the information provided by Mr C and the information provided by the practice. We also took independent advice from a GP adviser. We found that the original duty GP's actions were appropriate on the basis of Mr C's presenting symptoms. When further symptoms developed, it was appropriate to arrange a home visit but it was reasonable not to on the basis of the original phone calls. We concluded that the original duty GP's actions were in line with the relevant guidance and regulations. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

In respect of the practice's complaints handling, we agreed that there were some measures they could put in place to improve the customer experience. However, we considered their handling and response to Mr C's complaint to be reasonable on the whole. Although we did not uphold Mr C's complaint about this, we did offer some feedback to the board about how they can improve their complaints handling.

Summary

Miss C complained that her GP practice was not recognising her mental health problems and that they refused to carry out home visits. Miss C told us that she believes she has agoraphobia (a fear of entering open or crowded places, of leaving one's own home, or of being in places from which escape is difficult), although she has not been given a formal diagnosis.

Miss C wanted a diagnosis of agoraphobia and also had various concerns about her physical health. Given her condition, she wanted to be seen at home. In their response to our enquiry, the practice confirmed that Miss C had been referred to mental health services and that they had prescribed appropriate medication. They explained that they would always discourage home visits as they are not the correct setting for most medical problems. They said that in Miss C's case, they had concerns about visiting at home due to a mental health assessment which identified a concern that home visits could have a negative effect on Miss C's wellbeing.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser. We found that the treatment provided to Miss C was reasonable and the adviser had no concerns about the care provided by the practice. In relation to the home visit requests, the adviser noted that Miss C had not been diagnosed with an acute mental illness which would stop her from attending the surgery. They said that unless the patient is housebound, patients are best seen in a practice environment. We found that the practice had taken reasonable measures to support Miss C by offering quiet appointment times, phone consultations and offering home visits from a community psychiatric team. We noted that Miss C had declined to engage with services or treatment to help her, and considered that there was no further action the practice could reasonably take. Therefore, we did not uphold either of these complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way the council handled complaints he had made.

Firstly, Mr C complained that the council unreasonably refused to investigate his complaints about a member of staff regarding the treatment of his son at school and the way this had been investigated. We identified that the council had already undertaken a number of investigations in relation to matters concerning Mr C's son's treatment at school and the way in which subsequent investigations were dealt with. This had included some investigation of the member of staff Mr C had specific concerns about. We considered the council's refusal to investigate Mr C's complaints further to be reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained that, when the council contacted him to tell him that they would not be investigating his complaints, they said that they had 'comprehensively' scrutinised his complaints about his son's treatment at school, and the subsequent investigations. Mr C complained that this unreasonably implied that his complaints about the staff member had already been comprehensively scrutinised, and that this was not the case. We considered that the council were referring to matters more broadly, noting that the matters that they said had been comprehensively scrutinised encompassed some of Mr C's concerns about the member of staff. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Lastly, Mr C complained that what he considered to be the false implication above had been broadcast by the council to a number of parties in response to an email from him which he had copied to a distribution list. Given that we had not upheld the second complaint above, and had not found that what the council had said was unreasonable, it followed that we also did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.