Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Ms C's mother (Mrs A) had a number of health concerns and she required numerous hospital admissions over the course of two years. Ms C complained about the removal of diazepam (a medication used to treat anxiety) from her mother's medication regime during one of her admissions. Mrs A had been taking diazepam regularly for over forty years, and Ms C believed that its sudden withdrawal had caused delirium, which led to a worsening of Mrs A's dementia and her eventually having to go into a care home.

The board did not consider that Mrs A's increased confusion was necessarily caused by the withdrawal of diazepam. They noted that there were a number of other possible causes, including several long-term conditions and other issues, including acute infections. They accepted, however, that there had been some shortcomings when recording medicines on admission and on discharge and they identified this as a learning point.

We took independent advice from a consultant in acute medicine. We found that there are often multiple potential causes for delirium, and the adviser thought it unlikely that Mrs A's decline was attributable to diazepam withdrawal. We noted that there appeared to be admissions during which Mrs A was not administered any diazepam and showed no signs of withdrawal. Given that Mrs A was on a relatively low dose, the adviser did not think the withdrawal had caused Mrs A's delirium and decline. We therefore did not uphold this complaint.

Ms C also complained that the board failed to ensure that her mother was receiving reasonable medication therapy following the decision to stop her diazepam medication. The board had found during review that an alternative was prescribed and administered, albeit inconsistently. We found that Mrs A was on other medications which may have alleviated the need for a substitute and we noted that Mrs A had managed for several days during one admission without diazepam and without any signs of withdrawal. The adviser therefore thought it reasonable to have stopped this medication, assuming that withdrawal would not occur. We found that, at a later date, a susbtitute was introduced to Mrs A's medication regime, and the adviser did not consider that this was needed before this point. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the prison healthcare team's decision to withdraw his suboxone medication (medication used to treat opiate addictions). He also complained that it took an unreasonable amount of time for him to be reviewed by a GP when his prescription was discontinued.

We took independent advice from a medical adviser. Mr C was found to be concealing his medication and so it was stopped. The advice we received was that this decision was reasonable as it was in line with the medication contract that Mr C had signed. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Regarding the time taken for Mr C to be reviewed by a GP, we found that Mr C's records were reviewed by a GP within three days and that he subsequently received an appointment. The advice we received was that this wait was not unreasonable. We did not uphold this part of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is an advocacy and support worker, complained on behalf of his client (Ms B) about the clinical treatment provided to Ms B's son (Mr A). Mr A had been attending the practice over a number of months with recurrent symptoms, and Ms B felt that further investigations should have been carried out to determine the cause of Mr A's symptoms.

We took independent advice from a general practitioner. We found that Mr A had been appropriately assessed, examined and investigated by the practice. We also found that appropriate referrals were made for further investigations in light of Ms B's concerns. We found that the care and treatment provided was in line with the General Medical Council Good Medical Practice guidance. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained that the practice had unreasonably refused to provide Mr A with a medical appointment. We found that there had been no indication for an urgent appointment when Ms B had contacted the practice and that appropriate and adequate advice had been provided by the practice to Ms B based on Mr A's past clinical record, past attendances and persistently normal investigations. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained to us about the care and treatment she received at her GP practice. She considered that the practice delayed in diagnosing the severity of circulation problems in her leg and she questioned the treatment she had received. Mrs C felt that she should have been referred to the hospital's vascular department sooner. She believed that if she had been provided with appropriate clinical treatment and referred to vascular surgeons earlier then she may not have had to have her lower leg amputated.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser. We found that the assessment and treatment provided to Mrs C by the practice doctors was reasonable and appropriate and was in accordance with national guidelines. We found that there was no unreasonable delay by the practice in making the referral to the vascular department and that the referral did not require to be urgent because, at the time Mrs C was assessed, there was nothing to suggest critical ischaemia (an advanced state of peripheral artery disease and a threat to a limb). In addition, the referral had appropriately requested further investigation and clearly stated that Mrs C's doctor suspected vascular disease and asked that a doppler scan (a non-invasive test that can be used to estimate the patient's blood flow through blood vessels by bouncing high-frequency sound waves off of circulating red blood cells) be arranged. We also considered that there was no evidence to support the view that an earlier referral by the practice could have avoided the loss of Mrs C's lower leg.

Taking account of the evidence available, and the advice we received, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C, who was diagnosed with gastric lymphoma (a cancer originating in the stomach), complained that there had been an unreasonable delay by the practice in referring him for a specialist opinion. We took independent advice from a general practitioner. We found that there was no undue delay in referring Mr C for a specialist opinion given the information the practice had on which to base their decision. We also found that the practice had been diligent in their review of Mr C's case and that the action taken by the practice was reasonable. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that he had unreasonably been denied access to a course at the college. We reviewed the college's applications policy, the entry requirements for the course, and a number of other policies. We found that there was no evidence that the college failed to follow the procedures in considering and rejecting Mr C's application. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

During our investigation, the college explained that they were going to be reviewing the appeals process as a consequence of this complaint. We asked to be informed of the results of this review.

Summary

Mr C, who was studying a one-year postgraduate course, complained that the university failed to follow compensation criteria as set out in a programme handbook. Compensation is where a failed module can be converted to a pass in certain circumstances. Mr C said that a decision should have been taken at the first exam board of the academic year to compensate him for one module.

We found that the programme handbook did not specify whether compensation should be applied at the first or second exam attempts and that it did not specify whether compensation decisions should be taken at the first or second exam board. Decisions on whether and when to apply compensation were for the exam board to take. There was no evidence in the programme handbook to support Mr C's opinion, and Mr C's disagreement with the university's decisions and with their interpretation of matters was not, of itself, evidence of an administrative failing on the university's part. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the university's handling of his complaint was unreasonable. He felt that the university handled his complaint carelessly and that there was prejudice or bias against him. He said that the university were mistaken about the subject of his complaint, despite him reminding them, and that the university's investigation focused on irrelevant issues and took a different direction from his submitted complaint.

We found that the university's complaint investigators took Mr C's complaint seriously, and investigated it thoroughly and objectively. Having read the complaint Mr C submitted, and the notes of two meetings he had with the investigators, it was clear the university investigated the complaint Mr C made, dealt with the issues he raised, and provided reasonable explanations. Mr C's disagreement with the university's decisions and their interpretation of matters was not, of itself, evidence of an administrative failing on their part. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the university failed to notify her within a reasonable timescale of the registration fees required for her to proceed with her university course, failed to provide her with reasonable alternative payment options, gave her inconsistent advice about her progress on the course and did not provide her with suitable adaptations for her health conditions.

We found that the university acted reasonably and in line with their guidance documents when they provided support and information to Mrs C about the progression of her course. We found no evidence that the university had not notified her within a reasonable timescale of the required fees. However, the university did offer to provide a rebate for part of her fees in recognition of Mrs C's confusion about this. We found no evidence that Mrs C was prevented from paying her fees in instalments.

We found that Mrs C was aware that her progress on the course had encountered some difficulties and that staff had tried to support her. While Mrs C was told she was performing well enough to progress to other parts of the course, she later failed it. We did not consider this to be evidence that she was given inconsistent advice about her overall progress.

We found that there was a delay in providing suitable seating for Mrs C's needs, however this was rectified and an apology was provided.

We did not uphold any of Mrs C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C said that other prisoners had given him items of property when they were leaving the prison, but that prison staff had taken the items from him and disposed of them. Mr C complained about this and said that this was, in effect, prison staff stealing his belongings.

We found that the prison rules gave prison staff the authority to search cells and seize unauthorised property. In the prison's view, the items found in Mr C's cell were unauthorised property, within the definition given in the prison rules, rather than authorised personal property. The prison rules also gave prison staff the authority to dispose of or destroy unauthorised property.

We determined that prison staff were acting appropriately within the discretion given to them by the prison rules in searching Mr C's cell, seizing unauthorised property, and disposing of it. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.