Some upheld, no recommendations

Summary
Mrs C complained about the care and treatment that her husband (Mr C) received from the board before his death from cancer. She said that they had delayed in removing a lump from Mr C’s groin. We found that it was unreasonable for Mr C to have to wait for nearly six weeks for the surgery after the decision was made to remove the lump. We also found that the surgeon should have contacted an oncologist to discuss Mr C instead of waiting to discuss the case at a multidisciplinary meeting.

The surgeon had acknowledged that he would have preferred to operate sooner, but carried out the operation as soon as was possible. The board also told us that they had reorganised services within the department to increase the amount of theatre time available to cancer surgeons. They also said that they had reviewed their outpatient clinics so that greater time could be spent with these patients. In view of this, we did not make any recommendations.

Mrs C also complained that the board discharged Mr C from hospital inappropriately. We received medical advice that Mr C appeared to be fit for discharge, although the records in relation to this could have been clearer. We also found that the surgeon had communicated with Mr C and his medical practice in a satisfactory manner. These aspects of the complaint were not upheld.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained to the prison about the availability of carbon paper. After this, he raised a separate complaint with the prison about their handling of his complaint about the carbon paper. Mr C came to us because he was dissatisfied with the prison's response to his complaint about their handling of his original concern. We considered several issues including unreasonable delay, inappropriate responses and failure to communicate.

After reviewing all of the information available in Mr C's case, we decided to partly uphold his complaint. In particular, we upheld his complaints about delays because we agreed that they were unreasonable. However, we did not uphold the rest of Mr C's complaints because we were satisfied with the way the prison handled them.

Summary
Mr C complained about the treatment he received from the board for two hernias. He said that a surgeon failed to correctly interpret his scan results, as he failed to identify one of the hernias. However, we found that the surgeon had interpreted the scan correctly and had identified the second hernia. Mr C also complained that the surgeon said that he would be contacted in a week's time about another appointment, but there was then a ten-week delay in providing him with an appointment.

There was no evidence that the surgeon told Mr C he would be contacted in a week. The surgeon had recorded that he would discuss the scan with radiologists and one of his colleagues who specialised in abdominal wall repair. He also said that Mr C should continue to try to lose weight to improve the chances of repairing the hernias. In view of this, we found that the ten-week gap between his appointments was reasonable.

Mr C then cancelled the appointment due to work commitments. He complained about the board's delay in arranging a further appointment. We found that four and half months was too long for him to wait for another appointment and upheld his complaint about this delay.
 

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because an officer opened an envelope containing documents that Mr C had asked to be faxed to the court. Mr C said that, because the decision had been taken not to fax the documents, it was inappropriate for the officer to open the envelope. Mr C also complained about the prison's handling of his complaint.

Our investigation confirmed that the envelope was addressed to the officer but she did not know what it contained. The officer only became aware of Mr C's request to fax the documents once she opened the envelope and was able to read his note asking for the documents to be faxed to the court. We were satisfied that the officer's actions in opening the envelope were appropriate and did not uphold this part of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained about the delay in the governor responding to his complaint. In reviewing those concerns, it was clear the governor did delay in responding. We felt the delay was unreasonable and we upheld this part of Mr C's complaint.
 

Summary
Ms C lives alone in a three bedroom council property, one of a four-in-a-block. She wanted a transfer to move to a two bedroom house in the same town. After eight years she had not received an offer. She was, therefore, unhappy when another person in similar circumstances obtained a transfer to a two bedroom house. She understood that this person had received assistance from the council to move, under a Transfer Incentive Programme that Ms C did not know about.

Our investigation found that when the programme was introduced, the council identified certain tenants suitable for the scheme who lived in under-occupied properties and wrote to them offering an incentive to move to a smaller property. They did not offer this to Ms C and did not publicise the programme, but we did not find this unreasonable in the circumstances of the scheme and did not uphold the complaint. The council also told us that the person in similar circumstances did not receive such assistance. We did, however, uphold her complaint about the council’s complaints handling, in that first of all they did not respond and then when they did, they did not adequately explain the position.
 

Summary
Ms C was referred to a dentist for root canal treatment under sedation. Following treatment, Ms C developed an infection, which she felt was due to inappropriate dental treatment. She also complained that, when she attended to have her stitches removed, the dentist initially refused to do so until Ms C's outstanding account was paid.

We established that the dentist had provided appropriate treatment and that it is recognised that infections can develop following root canal treatment. Our dental adviser noted, however, that the dentist should have carried out a post treatment x-ray, which would have made him aware that part of the sealant material had become dislodged. For this reason we upheld the complaint that the treatment was not performed properly, and drew the attention of the dentist to our adviser's view.

We did not uphold Ms C’s other complaints that the infections arose as a result of poor treatment and about the dentist's attitude when Ms C returned to have the stiches removed. Our adviser noted that it would be normal practice to ask a patient to settle their account on completion of treatment and in any event the dentist did remove Ms C's stitches even though the account had not been paid.

Summary
Mr C complained about the treatment his adult daughter, Ms A, received at the Glasgow Southern General Hospital and a local Physical Disability Rehabilitation Unit following a diagnosis of thymus cancer. Mr C had numerous concerns in that Ms A was discharged from hospital in February 2010 with an inadequate care package and that in November 2010, Ms A was told she also had Neuromyelitis Optica (NMO) and her medication was altered. Mr C wondered how the NMO was missed in February 2010 and believed that this had resulted in a serious lapse in Ms A's condition.

We found that in general the treatment which Ms A received was of a reasonable standard and although there was a delay in the diagnosis of NMO this did not affect the treatment regime. While we upheld some of the complaint, we did not find that that board had failed to provide Ms A with suitable on-going care and that a comprehensive care package was in place.
 

Summary
The complainant, Mr C, lives next to a hospital. The local NHS board decided to site a new dental teaching and treatment facility in a location adjacent to the rear of his home. Mr C made four allegations concerning the unsatisfactory handling of the planning application, including unnecessary delay in informing him of the decision, the council's handling of variations from the approved plans, and their handling of his complaints and request for information.

Our investigation upheld one aspect of the handling of Mr C's objections to the plan, namely that the council delayed unduly in informing Mr C of the decision to grant consent and alerting him to the conditions imposed. We also partially upheld the complaint that the council dealt unsatisfactorily with his complaint and requests for information.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that information given by the prison in response to his complaint was incorrect. He said that he pled 'not guilty' to a charge in an orderly room hearing and a witness request was refused. The prison's response to his complaint indicated that he did not request a witness and he had pled 'guilty' to the charge. The prison acknowledged that there had been an error in saying that he had pled 'guilty', therefore, we upheld this part of Mr C's complaint. However, the orderly room paperwork indicated that no witnesses were requested and no plea in mitigation was made after the guilty finding. In the absence of other evidence to support Mr C's view, we had to have regard to the paperwork and so we did not uphold that aspect of his complaint.
 

Summary
Ms C, who is a vegan, was scheduled to have an operation in the day surgery unit (DSU) at the Royal Infirmary Edinburgh. At her pre-operative assessment she arranged for vegan food to be available. Ms C also suffers from a severe and chronic condition that is worsened by exertion, stress and lack of food. As this meant that it was possible that her hospital stay might be extended, four days of vegan meals were also to be available in the DSU. This was recorded in the clinical notes. Ms C had her surgery and was transferred from the DSU to a ward to recover, but the information about the food was not passed on. Ms C did not receive her lunch until 90 minutes after the rest of the ward had been served. The Board acknowledged that there was a communications breakdown in that the meals information did not follow Ms C from the DSU to the ward. They explained to us that there is in fact always vegan food available, but they had now made all staff involved aware of the communication failures that took place and what they should do in future. Wards and units have also been provided with a list of the vegan food permanently available from the catering department. As the Board had already taken appropriate action on this we upheld the complaint but did not find it necessary to make any further recommendations. Ms C also complained that her wheelchair and her bag - which contained vegan snacks that she had brought with her - were delayed in being transferred to the ward. We found, however, that these were available within one hour of Ms C going to the ward. We considered this reasonable, and did not uphold this complaint.