Some upheld, no recommendations

Summary

C’s child (A) was involved in an incident with another pupil. C complained to the council about how the matter had been handled. They complained about the school’s actions once the incident was reported, the school’s failure to instigate child protection procedures or involve partner services, and about the lack of ongoing assistance and support to A following the incident.

The council concluded that the school’s actions on the day of the incident had been reasonable and that support measures were put in place within the school following the incident, but also that the school should have made more efforts to contact the Educational Psychology Service at an early stage. The council accepted that it would have been appropriate to contact the Safeguarding Manager after A had given further information about the incident. The council said that the school had taken steps to ensure these shortcomings would not be repeated in future, but also noted that it was not likely that different actions would have been taken in the event of earlier contact with the Educational Psychology Service and the Safeguarding Manager. C was dissatisfied with this response and brought their complaint to us.

We found that the council’s investigations of the incident were reasonable in light of the specific circumstances and the relevant policy, procedure and guidance. In reaching our conclusion we took into account that the council had accepted that the school should have sought advice from the Safeguarding Manager. In relation to communication, we found that the school shared accurate details of the incident, as were available to them at the time, when they initially contacted C. We also found that it was reasonable they did not invite C to meet with them at this point given the circumstances, and that the school were open with C about the measures they had taken, while sharing a reasonable amount of detail about these measures with C in the circumstances, and having regard to confidentiality considerations. We did not uphold these aspects of C's complaint.

In relation to the support provided to A, we found that the school took some reasonable steps to support A following the incident. However, we considered that they did not pursue their attempted contact of the Educational Psychology Service as persistently as would have been reasonable given the circumstances. As the council had recognised this as part of their investigation of C’s complaints and apologised for this, we upheld this aspect of C's complaint but did not make any further recommendations.

Summary

Mr C complained about being detained by the partnership under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003.

We took independent advice from a consultant psychiatrist. We found that the emergency detention carried out by the partnership complied with the Act on both clinical grounds and in terms of procedure. We did not uphold this complaint.

Mr C also complained that the partnership unreasonably arranged an appointment to see him at home some time after his detention. We found that there were unreasonable shortcomings in the communication from the partnership. We noted that the partnership had acknowledged this and apologised to Mr C. We upheld this complaint but took no further action.

Mr C also complained that the partnership invoked their unacceptable behaviour policy. We found that Mr C had been provided with some incorrect information by the partnership about access to information held about his detention. However, the actions displayed by Mr C met at least two of the criteria required for this policy to be invoked. He had also been advised of the reasons why it was being invoked. We considered that the partnership had appropriately followed their policy on unacceptable behaviour. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that Clear Business Water (CBW) had failed to bill him appropriately. Mr C informed CBW that his restaurant had ceased trading but he occupied the premises above the restaurant which still required water. Mr C said that they were continuing to bill him as if his business was still operating and that he was receiving invoices on the basis of a large restaurant. We found that Mr C had been billed on actual meter reads and that CBW had manually recalculated his outstanding balance according to the information he had supplied. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Mr C also complained that CBW failed to handle his complaint reasonably. We found that there was a delay in Mr C's correspondence being dealt with as a complaint. Therefore, we upheld the complaint. However, given the action taken by this office in response to an earlier complaint we did not make any further recommendations.

Summary

Mr C complained about the information provided to him when he was awarded expenses by the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland (Housing and Property Chamber). Mr C was made aware of the steps of the Tribunal's process up until the Auditor of the Court of Session decided what amount was due as expenses, and the Tribunal issued an order for payment. Mr C did not follow that information. As this was only the second time that the tribunal awarded expenses, we considered it was reasonable that the administrative staff did not know this part of the procedure until informed of the process by a member of judicial staff. The next part of the procedure was covered by diligence procedure under Scots Law and is not distinct for this tribunal. Administrative staff were unaware Mr C did not know this and therefore did not address this. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Mr C also complained about a failure to provide a clear response to his complaint. Mr C made it clear he did not know the difference between an Order for compensation and an Order for expenses and it would have been helpful if this had been discussed with him. Mr C also received correspondence that did not address his complaint and stated that he was looking for legal advice, when that was not the case. There was a lack of understanding of how complex the procedure may appear to someone who had never been to the tribunal before. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

We noted that the Scottish Court and Tribunal Service had apologised to Mr C and made changes to their website to ensure information was clearer. We did not make any recommendations in this case but did included feedback to the organisation that an expression of empathy for those who found the process complex would be reasonable to expect in complaint handling.

Summary

Ms C complained that the university failed to provide her with adequate support after the death of her parent. We found that the university had acted in line with their guidance in relation to this matter. We did not consider that the actions of the university in responding to Ms C's concerns were unreasonable. We did not uphold this complaint.

Ms C also complained that the university failed to provide her with appropriate information about applying for an extension for her dissertation around this time. We found that it was unreasonable that Ms C was only told on the deadline date for her dissertation that an extension would be granted. We considered that Ms C should have been provided with clear information about this at an earlier stage. We upheld this complaint. The university said that they had taken action to prevent this from happening in the future. We asked them to provide evidence of the action taken.

Finally, Ms C complained that the university provided inaccurate information about when her results would be available. We found that there had been some confusion about this issue and that the information Ms C was given should have been clearer. However, we did not find any clear evidence that Ms C was given inaccurate information and, on balance, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained about the care and treatment she received at A&E at Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh (RIE) and when she attended for an MRI scan. She also complained about the clinical and nursing care and treatment provided during a number of admissions to the RIE.

We took independent advice from a consultant in emergency medicine in relation to Miss C's attendance at A&E. We found that the care and treatment was reasonable, in particular, that Miss C was seen by an emergency medicine doctor who obtained a thorough history and conducted a comprehensive examination; that the possibility of a pituitary (a small gland in the brain that makes hormones) tumour was considered and the most appropriate radiological imaging plan was discussed with a radiologist; that arrangements were made for an emergency out-patient MRI scan which was carried out within the timeframe for an urgent MRI scan.

We took independent advice from a consultant radiologist in relation to the care and treatment given to Miss C when she attended for an MRI scan. We found no evidence that the care and treatment was unreasonable and, therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

In relation to the clinical care and treatment given to Miss C when she was admitted to the RIE on three occasions, we took independent advice from a consultant surgeon. We found that the clinical care and treatment given to Miss C during these admissions was reasonable and we did not uphold these complaints.

Finally, we took independent advice from a nursing adviser in relation to the nursing aspects of the care given to Miss C during two of her admissions to the RIE. We found failings in relation to Miss C's discharge medication on one occasion and we upheld this aspect of her complaint. The board accepted these failings and had taken action which we considered was reasonable.

Therefore, we made no further recommendations. We found no failings in relation to the nursing care and treatment given to Miss C during the second admission to the RIE and we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C's child (Child A) suffered from a rare medical condition. Mr C complained that Child A and their family had not been provided with adequate care and support in the community. In particular, Mr C complained about the failure of the community nurse to visit and the failure by the partnership to provide him with the medical supplies Child A needed.

The partnership had accepted that Mr C and his family had not received a reasonable level of support. We took advice from an independent nursing adviser who considered the action plan the partnership had drawn up in response to Mr C's complaint. We found the action plan was a reasonable response to the issues identified in the complaint. We also found the partnership had taken reasonable steps to address the failings of individual members of staff. We asked the partnership to provide further evidence showing the action plan had been completed. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint, but made no further recommendations.

Mr C also complained that the board failed to investigate his complaint properly. We noted that the partnership should have made it clear to Mr C that information about staff discipline could not be provided to him. However, we found that the boards investigation of Mr C's complaint was reasonable and did not uphold this aspect of his complaint.

Finally, Mr C complained that although the partnership had apologised for failing to provide the appropriate support, they had continued to fail to order medical supplies for Child A. We found the partnership had failed to provide medical supplies as promised following Mr C's complaint. The partnership were, however, able to provide evidence that subsequently they had been able to consistently provide the medical supplies Child A needed. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint but made no further recommendations given the action already taken by the board to fix the problem.

Summary

Ms C complained about the nursing care she received at St John's Hospital during two separate admissions. Ms C had a complex medical history and was assessed by a range of clinical professionals during each admission. Ms C was unhappy with the way nurses behaved towards her and communicated with her.

We took independent advice from a registered nurse. We considered Ms C's account, staff statements and the clinical records available. Based on the evidence available, we were unable to establish that there had been failings in the way nursing staff behaved towards or communicated with Ms C. We did not find that the care provided was unreasonable and we did not uphold Ms C's complaints about care.

We also considered whether the board investigated and responded to Ms C's complaints appropriately. We did not identify failings in the level of investigation performed or the accuracy of the complaint response. However, we found that the board did not meet the timescales for issuing a response set out in the procedure. For this reason, we upheld this complaint. We were satisfied that the board had taken appropriate action to address this issue since the time of the complaint and we did not make any recommendations.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the care and treatment provided to her late mother (Mrs A) at Royal Alexandra Hospital was unreasonable. Mrs C also complained that the board's communication with Mrs A's family was unreasonable.

Mrs C said that staff had acted unprofessionally when asked for help changing Mrs A's position. Mrs C also told us she had frequently observed nursing staff inaccurately recording information on Mrs A's care plan, food and fluid charts. During our investigation we found that Mrs C had made amendments on the nursing records where she perceived them to be wrong. It was unclear though where Mrs C had made amendments so we were unable to assess the quality of the records. It also meant we were unable to clearly identify failings in the board's care and treatment of Mrs A. We therefore discontinued our investigation of this aspect of the complaint.

Mrs C told us the board's communication with Mrs A's family was unreasonable because staff did not provide them with updates about Mrs A's condition. She also said that on a couple of occasions staff told Mrs A that she would be going home and a care package would be organised, only for her later to be told the care package had been cancelled due to lack of carers. We found that although the medical records demonstrated that staff spoke to Mrs A's family about her condition throughout her stay in hospital, it was clear that Mrs A's family did not feel they knew enough about what was happening and, in particular, when Mrs A could be discharged. In response to Mrs C's complaint to them, the board apologised for their communication with Mrs A's family and the distress caused by the uncertainty about Mrs A's discharge date. They agreed this should have been communicated more effectively. We upheld this aspect of the complaint but made no recommendations as the board had already taken appropriate action.

Summary

Ms C complained that Ninewells Hospital failed to provide her with reasonable care and treatment when she was admitted for investigations by the gastroenterology (branch of medicine which deals with disorders of the stomach and intestines) team.

We took independent advice from a consultant gastroenterologist. We found that the treatment Ms C received was reasonable and that it was appropriate for a senior gastroenterologist to review her situation before determining what other investigations should be carried out. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Ms C also complained about a failure to provide her with a reasonable response to her complaint and within a reasonable period of time. We found that communication with Ms C regarding a change to her care management plan was unreasonable; there was a failure to let her know what was happening as she received an appointment for a clinic review rather than a colonoscopy. This was a communication error in the internal referral process. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of the complaint. Wenoted that the board have already taken action to address this failing so madeno further recommendations.