Some upheld, no recommendations

Summary

C complained about the support they received as a disabled student while attending the university. C said that the university failed to put appropriate reasonable adjustments in place to meet their needs. However, the university were satisfied that appropriate support and reasonable adjustments were put in place.

We highlighted to C that the purpose of our investigation was not to assess each individual measure taken by the university or interaction C had with staff and decide whether they were reasonable. Given the circumstances, we considered it reasonable to expect that some measures may not be successful and that there may be disagreement over what actions were put in place or how they are delivered. We concluded that the university made appropriate efforts to assess what support and reasonable adjustments should be put in place. Where the university concluded that certain adjustments suggested by C went beyond what they considered reasonable, we were satisfied that appropriate explanations were provided. In light of this, we did not uphold this complaint.

C also complained about the university's handling of their complaint. We did not have any concerns about the thoroughness of the university's investigation or response. However, there were significant delays to the university's complaint handing at both stage 1 and stage 2 of the process. In addition to this, the university have acknowledged that they did not provide appropriate updates to C during this time. On the basis of the delays in handling C's complaint and providing updates, we upheld this complaint. However, as the university had already taken what we considered to be appropriate action, we did not make any recommendations.

Summary

C complained about the condition of the flat that they had moved into and the way the association had handled their reports of disrepair and their subsequent complaint. C felt that they had been pressured into accepting a property which was not fit for human habitation. C said that the association had been obstructive and bullying, ignoring both C and their partner's significant health issues, as well as their new baby.

We found that the association had accepted that the flat C moved into had required work, which should have been identified and carried out while it was empty. The association had apologised for this and paid C £500 compensation. C had also been provided with vouchers to assist with their decorating costs.

We found that the association's actions were reasonable; although it was not disputed the flat's condition had fallen below a reasonable standard, the association had recognised this, met with C, apologised, paid them compensation and arranged for repair work to be carried out within the property. Some of the issues C had raised were not the responsibility of the association, such as pest control and the decoration of the flat internally. We upheld this aspect of C's complaint but made no further recommendations.

Summary

A few hours after a surgical procedure, C underwent a second operation due to an internal haemorrhage (a loss of blood from a blood vessel that collects inside the body). Following the second operation, C complained to the board about the documenting of their operations, the estimation of their blood loss, communication with their spouse and colleagues, the removal of the patient controlled analgesia (PCA, a method of allowing a person in pain to administer their own pain relief) which was installed following the operations, and that a follow-up appointment was not provided in the timescale they had been advised.

The board's response was that the operations had been reasonably documented, except the detail of one of the units of blood transfused to C, and that the estimation of blood loss and the removal of PCA had been reasonable. The board accepted that they had not communicated with C's spouse and colleagues as C had wished, and that C had not been given realistic information about the likely timescale for a follow-up appointment.

C was dissatisfied with the responses they received and raised their complaints with this office.

We took independent advice from an obstetrician and gynaecologist (a doctor who specialises in pregnancy, childbirth and the female reproductive system).

Although the date and time of the transfusion of the second unit of blood to C during their second operation was omitted, we found that, overall, the board reasonably documented events relating to C's operations. We also found that the board's underestimation of C's blood loss was less critical than vigilance of their condition, observations and blood count. We found that the removal of C's PCA was in line with relevant guidance and that it was reasonable that C was not provided with a follow-up appointment within six weeks given the circumstances. We did not uphold these aspects of C's complaint.

In relation to communication, we found that C's wishes for communication with their spouse and colleagues had not been observed. We upheld this aspect of C's complaint. However, we did not make any recommendations given the action already taken by the board.

Summary

C brought a complaint to us about the gynaecology (medicine of the female genital tract and its disorders) care and treatment they received when they attended Ninewells Hospital. In particular, C complained that they suffered complications from the surgery they underwent and felt that a number of things had gone wrong due to incorrect procedures. C explained that they felt that they were not listened to, nor were they cared for properly or treated with dignity and respect.

We took independent advice from a consultant gynaecologist. We found that while there was some learning for the board in relation to the saving of ultrasound documentation (pictures or hard drive images) and advising C to check for coil threads, the overall care and treatment given to C was reasonable and the complications which arose in this case were recognised complications. We also found that C had been fully and appropriately consented for these. We did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.

C also complained about the way the board handled their complaint. We found that the board have already acknowledged and apologised for failings identified and said that changes had been made to individuals' practice and to some systems. In the circumstances, while we upheld the complaint, we had no recommendations to make.

Summary

C complained that the board's treatment of their breast cancer was unreasonable. Following a routine breast screening, C was diagnosed with breast cancer. They underwent surgery and were told that the tumour was successfully removed and no further surgery would be required.

C was referred to the oncologist (a doctor who specialises in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer) for ongoing treatments including chemotherapy. Before commencing the treatments, it was identified that the initial surgery had not cleared the cancer. Further surgery was organised but that procedure was not successful. Chemotherapy could not be delayed further so C had to undergo a mastectomy (an operation to remove a breast).

Through its own investigation, the board acknowledged that there had been a failure to review the correct and relevant postoperative pathology information from C's surgery. Appropriate action was taken by the board as soon as the error was identified. We took independent advice from a consultant breast surgeon who agreed that overall the failing in C's case was very significant but that it did not result in significant harm as it was discovered and appropriate steps were taken to rectify it before any further treatments were commenced. We upheld this aspect of C's complaint but did not make any recommendations.

C also complained that the board failed to respond appropriately to their complaint. We found that the board took C's complaint seriously, they acknowledged that an error occurred and they committed to reviewing the process to ensure that the same kind of error would not happen again. The board also gave an appropriate apology. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C was required to complete three school placements as part of his secondary teaching course. Mr C complained that the university failed to provide him with appropriate support during his course and that, after he was deemed to have failed, they did not follow their normal procedure. He was also unhappy with the way the university carried out their investigation into his complaints.

The university said that they had given appropriate support to Mr C and dealt with his concerns and complaints in accordance with their stated procedures.

We found that the support given to Mr C was as required and stated in their guidance documentation. There was no evidence to suggest that he had been treated unfairly in relation to others and this complaint was not upheld.

In relation to complaint handling, we found that the university followed their complaints process in dealing with Mr C’s complaints. However, there were delays (about which Mr C was kept informed) and some of which were unavoidable. Nevertheless on balance, on the basis of timescale alone, this aspect of the complaint was upheld but we made no recommendations.

Summary

Ms C began her studies and was given a laptop by the university to assist her. The laptop went on to develop a fault and Ms C requested a repair. The university established that she had been given the laptop without having completed the normal procedures for assessing students requirements for assistance and allocating funds. After lengthy correspondence on the issue and a complaint, the university acknowledged that Ms C had a legitimate expectation that the laptop would be repaired, despite the fact that the appropriate procedures had not been followed. However, there was further delay and Ms C did not receive equipment for some time. Ms C complained that there was an unreasonable delay in repairing the laptop and in handling her complaint.

Having looked at the correspondence, which included a further response to the complaint from the university and a refund of fees, we established that the university had acknowledged significant failings with respect to the handling of the complaint and the time it had taken to address issues with equipment. The university upheld these complaints and had indicated that it was taking actions to address how it handled complaints in future. We upheld these complaints but made no further recommendation for action by the university.

Ms C also complained that the universities request for medical evidence from her was handled unreasonably and that they unreasonably recommended she left the course. We reviewed the communications with Ms C and found the university acted reasonably, and therefore we did not uphold these aspects of Ms C's complaint.

Summary

C complained on behalf of their family member (A). A had several admissions to hospital with complaints of abdominal and back pain. They underwent a laparoscopic cholecystectomy (removal of the gallbladder) but their symptoms did not improve. Following an MRI scan, a spinal infection was suspected and antibiotics were commenced, which resulted in a C.diff (a bacterium that can cause symptoms ranging from diarrhoea to life-threatening inflammation of the colon) infection. This type of infection most commonly affects people who have been treated with antibiotics. Further scans were then carried out which showed suspicious lesions on A's lung, and they were diagnosed with cancer.

C was concerned that, despite the tests and investigations arranged during A's time in hospital, it took around six months before cancer was diagnosed. In addition, C was unhappy with the board's handling of their complaints.

We took independent advice from an appropriately qualified adviser. We found that there were frequent and detailed reviews of A's care, and appropriate management plans were made and carried out. A's cancer could only reasonably have been expected in the last admission, and although there was an initial incorrect diagnosis of infection, this was a reasonable one to make at the time, and it was then corrected once A's symptoms changed and they failed to respond to the initial treatment. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

In looking at the board's handling of C's complaint, the complexity of the issues that were raised meant that the level of investigation required impacted on the timescales. The responses issued to C demonstrated that the complaints were taken seriously by the board and the matters were investigated thoroughly. Overall, it was a lengthy process, with some significant delays, which was acknowledged by the board who apologised to C. We upheld the complaint but did not make any further recommendations.

Summary

C complained that the partnership failed to reasonably assess and provide the level of support required by their adult child (A). C also complained about the failure to deal with their complaint within a reasonable period of time.

A moved into their own council tenancy and was entitled to a budget for 24-hour care. C was unhappy as the budget provided would not allow for 24-hour care on a one-to-one basis which C considered the partnership should provide. We found that the partnership were consistent with their message prior to A moving into the new tenancy. They had stated A may not be provided with a budget for one-to-one 24-hour care. We found that the assessments carried out were reasonable. We noted that the partnership were entitled to provide equivalent care at a lower cost and had provided a budget which would support 24-hour care in a core and cluster setting. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

In relation to complaint handling, we found that the partnership failed to deal with C's complaint within a reasonable period of time. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. As the partnership had apologised for this and had taken steps to address this in future, we did not make any further recommendations in relation to this complaint.

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment provided to their late partner (A). C said that there was an unreasonable delay in diagnosing that A was suffering from cancer. We took independent advice from a consultant in acute medicine (a doctor who specialises in the immediate and early management of adult patients with a wide range of medical conditions who present in hospital as emergencies) and a consultant in respiratory medicine (a doctor who specialises in treating and managing patients with conditions affecting their lungs). We found that the care and treatment A received was reasonable and that there was no delay in diagnosing that they had cancer. As such, we did not uphold the complaint.

C also complained that the medical care and treatment provided to A after diagnosis was unreasonable. We took independent advice from a consultant in respiratory medicine. We found that the care and treatment given to A was reasonable; that all appropriate investigations and tests were carried out and that these were performed rapidly. We also noted that A's main consultant was actively involved and spoke at length to the family, as did the clinical nurse specialist. Finally, we found that there were frequent discussions where A and the family were updated on their condition. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

In addition, C complained that the nursing care and treatment provided to A after the diagnosis of cancer was unreasonable. We took independent advice from a nursing adviser. We found that, while the majority of the nursing care and treatment given to A was reasonable and in line with the Nursing Midwifery Council Code, the board had accepted that the condition that C had found A in when they had attended the ward on one occasion was unreasonable and that they had taken action as a result. On balance, we upheld the complaint but made no recommendations.

Finally, C complained that A was unreasonably discharged from Forth Valley Royal Hospital. We took independent advice from a consultant in respiratory medicine and from a nursing adviser. We found no evidence that A had been unreasonably discharged and as such we did not uphold the complaint.