Not upheld, recommendations

Summary

Miss C, an advocate, complained on behalf of her client (Ms A) that the partnership reduced Ms A's support hours.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found some administrative and communication issues with one review of Ms A's support hours. However, overall, reviews of Ms A's support were carried out in line with relevant guidance, standards and the partnership's eligibility criteria. This indicated that they took account of Ms A's needs. We considered that the partnership acted reasonably in reducing Ms A's support hours and we did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Although we did not uphold the complaint, to provide an opportunity for further improvement, we made some recommendations to address the administrative and communication issues.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms A for the lack of communication in relation to the review, and for not notifying her in writing of the reduction in support hours. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Ensure there is a system in place where service users receive a copy of their support plan and eligibility criteria promptly following the assessment and review, and this is noted on the recording sheet already in place.
• Ensure there is a system of notification to service users confirming the number of support hours agreed, a summary of how that support is to be provided, from whom, and if there is an expectation that support hours will reduce the timescales expected for this.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C complained that his postgraduate supervisors failed to follow relevant policy or procedure in relation to his supervision, and about the university's investigation of his complaint.

We found no evidence that Mr C's supervisors failed to follow relevant policy or procedure. Mr C was particularly concerned that, after his first three years of postgraduate study, the number of meetings with his supervisors reduced significantly. Mr C first raised this issue after failing his final assessment. We found no evidence that he complained about the reduction in meetings in the second three years of postgraduate study, during which the university recorded that he failed to make progress with his work or engage with his supervisors for about 18 months. In terms of the university's investigation of Mr C's complaint, we found that it was thorough and appropriate in the circumstances.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. However, we determined that the university's policy and code of practice for postgraduate students could be clearer on the level of supervision available in similar circumstances, and we made a recommendation to address this point.

Recommendations

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Update the policy and code for postgraduate research study to explain the level of supervision a student could expect in their writing up phase and when not paying fees.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to take reasonable steps in relation to his complaints about dust and noise from industrial premises near his home.

We took independent advice from a consultant in environmental health. We found no evidence of a lack of willingness by the council to respond to Mr C's complaints of dust and noise, in line with the relevant legislation. We found that, on each occasion, the council determined there was insufficient evidence of a statutory nuisance. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Although we did not uphold the complaint, we did have concerns about the council's records of monitoring and the advisability of follow-up in relation to the council's recent investigations regarding dust and noise. We made a recommendation and provided feedback to the council to address these points.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Carry out further follow-up monitoring of dust and noise, and work with the premises operator if appropriate to mitigate noise sources where possible.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his daughter (Ms A) about the care and treatment she received at Queen Elizabeth University Hospital. During a surgical procedure Ms A was diagnosed with endometriosis (a condition where the lining of the womb grows outside the womb) and she was given treatment to alleviate her symptoms. Afterwards, Ms A was discharged back to the care of her GP and her symptoms returned a few months later. Mr C considered that Ms A should have received a standard follow-up gynaecology (the branch of medicine which specialises in the female reproductive system) appointment, instead of being discharged back to her GP's care.

During our investigation we took independent advice from a consultant gynaecologist. We found that there was no clinical guidance that Ms A should have received a standard follow-up gynaecology appointment after her diagnosis. We considered that it was reasonable that the board expected that Ms A's treatment would improve her symptoms. We further considered that, even if the board suspected her symptoms might return, it is possible for endometriosis to be managed by a GP, with advice from gynaecology if required. Therefore, we considered it was reasonable that Ms A was discharged back to the care of her GP. We did not uphold the complaint.

However, the adviser noted that the post-surgical verbal advice given to Ms A was not documented. Also, Ms A did not appear to receive any written advice as back up, even though she was still recovering from the anaesthetic when the verbal advice was given. We made some recommendations regarding this.

Recommendations

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• There should be a clear record of the verbal advice given to patients after surgery.
• In similar circumstances, consideration should be given to patients receiving written post-surgical advice to back up any verbal advice given to them.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of concerns about the council's handling of a planning application. In particular that they failed to ensure a public consultation was carried out to a certain standard, they failed to describe the development appropriately, there was a flaw in a report, they had breached a condition of planning permission and that they failed to act when notified of wilful destruction of wildlife. Mr C also complained that the council inaccurately described their internal complaints procedure as independent.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. In all instances, we considered that the council had acted reasonably and appropriately. We did not uphold any of Mr C's complaints. However, we did note that in reference to the public consultation, there were inconsistencies in the terminology used to describe the proposed development and the pre-application advert could have been clearer. We made a recommendation to the council in light of this finding.

Recommendations

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Pre-application descriptions and materials should be clear and materials used at consultation events should be obtained by the council to ensure the consultation is appropriate.

Summary

Miss C complained about the way that the housing association handled her application to transfer to another property. She also complained that the association failed to take appropriate action in response to her reports of mice in her home.

We found that the association had reasonably followed their allocations policy and had used their discretion appropriately, taking into account the demand for available housing. We did not uphold this part of Miss C's complaint.

Regarding the mice in Miss C's property, we found that the association had liaised with the council's environmental health team to resolve the infestation, and that they had taken repair action to fill gaps as requested. We considered that they had responded reasonably, and we did not uphold this part of Miss C's complaint. However, we found that the association had misinterpreted advice that was given to them by the council's environmental health team, which influenced policy changes to remove the need for a case by case assessment of habitability in cases of mouse infestation. We, therefore, recommended that they revisit these changes to ensure that they are appropriate.

Recommendations

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Any report of mouse infestation should be individually assessed to ensure the property remains habitable whilst the problem is addressed.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the partnership's handling of her complaint. In particular, that the person investigating her complaint was located in the same building as the social worker she complained about, that they would not accept further information from Mrs C to support her complaint, that they inaccurately maintained that Mrs C's solicitor was present at a meeting and that they contacted a witness to confirm their statement of facts when Mrs C said that she intended to bring her complaint to us.

We found that the partnership had exercised their discretion regarding the person they chose to investigate and respond to the complaint. The partnership's complaints handling procedure does not state that a complaint should be investigated by a member of staff who is located in a different building to the staff complained about. We considered that the partnership demonstrated good practice in having initial discussions with Mrs C about her complaint and seeking her written agreement on the matters she wanted investigated. Whilst we found that the member of staff investigating the complaint should have advised Mrs C that she could raise additional issues as a new complaint, we noted that Mrs C was aware that she could do so.

We found that the partnership had no evidence to show that Mrs C's solicitor was present at the meeting and we recommended that they apologise to her for continuing to maintain this. In relation to witness statements, the person investigating the complaint should have received all of the signed statements before issuing their final response to Mrs C's complaint. However, we did not consider that this had any material impact. We considered that the partnership's overall handling of the complaint was of a reasonable standard. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C for inaccurately suggesting that her solicitor had been present at a discussion. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

Summary

Ms C, who works for an advocacy and support agency, complained on behalf of her client (Ms A) about the care Ms A received at the Vale of Leven Hospital.

Ms A was injured at work and afterwards her knee was painful and giving way. She was referred for an arthroscopy (keyhole joint surgery). Ms A was told that she had torn her anterior cruciate ligament (a band of connective tissue that holds the knee bones together and helps stabilise the joint). She was referred for physiotherapy but she continued to have problems with her knee. She was then offered surgery to reconstruct her anterior cruciate ligament, which she declined. Several years later, Ms A had a further knee arthroscopy. She was told that her anterior cruciate ligament was present, intact and functional. Ms C complained that following her first arthroscopy, Ms A was misdiagnosed with a torn anterior cruciate ligament.

We took independent advice from a consultant orthopaedic surgeon with a special interest in knee surgery. We found that Ms A had suffered a partial tear to her anterior cruciate ligament and as a result of this injury, her anterior cruciate ligament was not stabilising her knee so it required treatment. We found that Ms  A was correctly referred for physiotherapy and as this was not successful, surgery was appropriately discussed with her. We noted that the findings of her second arthroscopy were broadly similar to the first arthroscopy, as it also found evidence she had experienced a partial tear to her anterior cruciate ligament. We found that although Ms A no longer appeared to have instability in her knee joint, this may have been because of the osteoarthritis (chronic breakdown of cartilage in the joints leading to stiffness) in her knee joint. We found no evidence that Ms  A's injury had originally been misdiagnosed and, therefore, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint. However, we noted that Ms A should have been referred to a specialist to assess if anterior cruciate ligament surgery was appropriate for her and made a recommendation in light of this finding.

Recommendations

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Patients with anterior cruciate ligament injuries should be appropriately referred to a specialist surgeon.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care and treatment provided to his late father (Mr A) at Whyteman’s Brae Hospital. Mr A had been diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (an autoimmune disease that causes pain, swelling and stiffness in the joints) and was reviewed in the rheumatology department over the following 18 months. Mr A subsequently became unwell with a respiratory illness and he was admitted to another hospital. Mr A’s condition continued to deteriorate during the admission and he died. Mr C complained to the board about the way the rheumatology department assessed, monitored, and treated his father for rheumatoid arthritis. He felt that poor clinical management in the department had resulted in Mr A’s deterioration and subsequent death.

We took independent advice from a rheumatology specialist. We found that the assessment, treatment and monitoring of Mr A’s condition was of a good standard. We did not consider that there were any significant omissions in his care or any failure to act on symptoms reported by Mr A. While the adviser said that Mr A had an acute respiratory illness that may have been related to the use of one of the medications he was prescribed, they did not consider that this was evidence of a failing in Mr A’s care. We found that the board provided Mr A with reasonable care and treatment and did not uphold Mr C's complaint. However, we found that there were unreasonable delays in letters from the board being typed and sent to Mr A's GP and made a recommendation in light of this finding.

Recommendations

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Communication between secondary care and primary care should be timely.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to appropriately handle a complaint he had made about the way in which they had investigated adult protection concerns he raised regarding his mother. The council admitted that they did not follow the usual complaints process in investigating Mr C's complaint. They said that Mr C made multiple complaints and continued to raise his dissatisfaction in correspondence. The council decided to deal with all of the issues raised in a single case review. After the first case review was complete the council agreed to a second case review.

Ultimately, we decided that the process offered by the council was equivalent to the complaints process, and although there was some confusion in respect of communication, ultimately Mr C got the kind of response he would have had the council's complaints procedure been followed. The complaint had been considered in the usual way by a complaint review committee, as was Mr C's right under the social work complaints process at the time. We did not uphold the complaint, however, we recommended that the council apologise to Mr C for the confused communication regarding the handling of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the confused communication around how the complaint was going to be handled. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.