Some upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mrs C complained about the nursing care and treatment provided to her late brother (Mr A) at Queen Elizabeth University Hospital. Mrs C raised a wide range of issues including a failure to provide Mr A with adequate personal care and to properly identify and treat a pressure ulcer. Mrs C also said her mother had been required to provide Mr A with personal care, even though she was elderly and unfit to do so. The board said Mr A had requested nursing staff allow his family to provide personal care, and that staff had discussed this with Mr A and his mother. Mr A had suffered skin damage, but not a pressure ulcer and this had been treated appropriately.

We took independent advice from a nurse. We noted that staff should have ensured that discussions about patient care were properly recorded and we provided feedback to the board. However, we found that the care provided to Mr  A was reasonable and we did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

Mrs C also complained that the board failed to handle her complaint reasonably. We found that there had been an excessive delay in responding to Mrs C's complaint correspondence, due to human error on the part of a member of staff. We upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint and provided feedback to the board.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the housing association unreasonably failed to inform her of future service change when they offered her a tenancy. Mrs C signed a tenancy agreement for sheltered accommodation run by the association. Shortly after moving into the accommodation she was advised that the service provision was likely to change due to changes to funding provided by the local council. Mrs C complained that the association was aware of this change when she was offered her tenancy agreement.

We found that the change to funding provision was confirmed three working days before the offer of tenancy was made to Mrs C. A plan on how to communicate the new circumstances was agreed on the same day the offer of tenancy was made. Mrs C signed the tenancy agreement two days later. Given the short timeframe between the confirmation of change of funding, the initially unknown impact on what the future service provision would look like, and the need for the association to communicate the change to staff before tenants and prospective tenants, we found that the actions of the association were reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. We noted that, in recognition of the upset the situation had caused, the association had agreed to make a donation to a charity of Mrs C's choice.

Mrs C also complained that a letter addressed to her was unreasonably opened by a member of staff. In their response to the complaint the association advised that, as they did not have evidence that the letter was addressed specifically to Mrs C, they could not uphold the complaint. In the course of our investigation a copy of the letter was provided which showed that it was addressed specifically to Mrs C. We upheld the complaint, though as the association had already revised their decision, upheld the complaint and apologised, we made no further recommendations.

.

Summary

Mr C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of his clients (Mr and Mrs B) about the council's complaints handling process in relation to social work. Mr and Mrs B had made a funding application for a house extension to accommodate the needs of their disabled son (Mr A). This had been refused after occupational therapy reviews and the matter went to a complaints review committee (CRC). Mr C complained that the council unreasonably delayed in considering the recommendations of the CRC; failed to give reasonable justification for not accepting the recommendations of the CRC; and failed to consider a subsequent complaint in line with their obligations.

In relation to the delay, the council said that this was due to staff absence, and therefore the report was not available to meet the deadline. We considered this explanation to be reasonable; however, the legislation states that if there are delays in considering CRC recommendations, this has to be agreed with the complainant. We found that the council had not agreed an extension to the deadline and therefore upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

In relation to not accepting the recommendations, the council said that the committee had made the decision to disregard them based on a report by the social work department. However, they acknowledged that this was not published in the minutes in line with the relevant guidance. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

During our investigation, we found that the council had since introduced a new legislative procedure for social work complaints. Therefore, we made no recommendations in relation to Mr C's complaints.

Finally, in considering how the council had handled a subsequent complaint of Mr C's, we found that the council had initially responded in a timely manner, apologising where appropriate and explaining their position. Therefore, we did not upold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council failed to reasonably respond to concerns she raised about dampness and mould in her property. Mrs C said that throughout the time she resided there, she and her family had to endure intolerable living conditions which affected their health. She also said that furniture and personal possessions were ruined. Mrs C and her family were later relocated to another property. Mrs C also complained that the council failed to carry out appropriate repairs to the property.

We found that, in a number of areas, the council's response to Mrs C's concerns about dampness and mould in the property were of a reasonable standard based on the evidence available. However, we considered that the council could have given clearer information about initial works carried out to the property before Mrs  C moved in and that there was delay in the information provided to her about making an insurance claim. The council acknowledged that the explanation for the source of the damp and mould in the property had changed over the course of their correspondence and there was a lack of a co-ordinated response from the council teams concerned. The council also acknowledged that this had led to a delay in responding to Mrs C's complaint. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint. However, we considered that the council had appropriately acknowledged and apologised to Mrs C for the failings in responding to her concerns and that they had taken action to address this.

In relation to Mrs C concerns about appropriate repairs, we found that there was evidence that the council took appropriate steps to ascertain the problems at the property and establish what repairs were necessary. We considered it was reasonable for the council to rely on the professional judgement of their officers, who considered that the problems were being caused by condensation, rather than water ingress. We found that the council's actions to address the damp and mould issues were reasonable, and therefore we did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained about the medical treatment her late mother (Ms A) received at Ninewells Hospital before her death. Ms A had been admitted to hospital on three occasions with exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, a disease of the lungs in which the airways become narrowed). It was then diagnosed that she had heart failure and Ms A died a week after her final admission. Miss C considered that there had been a delay in making a diagnosis of heart failure, as staff wrongly assumed that Ms A had COPD and delayed in carrying out the tests that showed she had heart failure.

We took independent advice from a consultant in acute medicine and from a consultant radiologist. We found that the investigations carried out in the hospital had been reasonable and appropriate and that it was reasonable that staff initially considered Ms A had COPD. We noted that it can be difficult to distinguish between heart and lung disease, especially when both are present together, and that there had not been an unreasonable delay in making a diagnosis. We did not uphold this aspect of Miss C's complaint.

Miss C also complained that staff had failed to adequately communicate with her and Ms A. The board had accepted that there were failings in relation to communication and we upheld this aspect of Miss C's complaint. We found that the main impact of this was that Miss C was not prepared for Ms A's sudden death. However, we were satisfied that the board had apologised for and addressed these failings whilst they were dealing with Miss C's complaint and we did not make any recommendations in relation to this matter.

Summary

Mr C contacted the commission to raise concerns about the care and treatment his late mother (Mrs A) received while in hospital. Mrs A had advanced dementia and was elderly and frail. Mr C complained that the commission did not appropriately investigate his concerns about the care and treatment his mother received and also the circumstances of her death. He also complained that they failed to handle his complaint appropriately.

The commission advised Mr C that they visited Mrs A on two occasions, consulted with various professionals involved in Mrs A's care, and reviewed her records. The commission confirmed that they did not have any grounds to investigate Mr C's concerns any further and they referred him to the NHS complaints procedure. Mr C then brought his complaint to us.

We found that the commission took the appropriate steps to investigate Mr C's concerns by visiting Mrs A on two occasions and making various enquiries. The commission considered that the NHS decisions relating to Mrs A's care were based on thorough assessments and, therefore, we considered that it was reasonable for the Commission to conclude they had insufficient grounds to investigate further. As the care and treatment was found to be reasonable, it was also appropriate for the commission to decide they had no grounds to investigate the circumstances of Mrs A's death. We did not uphold this part of Mr C's complaint.

However, we did find that the commission failed to respond to an email of complaint sent by Mr C and that they failed to refer Mr C to our office in the correspondence which they later said was their final response. We upheld this part of Mr C's complaint. We noted that the commission have since attended complaints handling training, and we therefore made no further recommendations.

Summary

Ms C complained that the university did not provide reasonable feedback following the re-examination of her thesis, provided inaccurate information about the timescales for submitting an appeal, did not process her appeal properly and provided her with inaccurate information about visa matters.

We found that the university provided Ms C with inaccurate information about timescales for submitting her appeal. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint. However, we did not make any recommendations as the university acknowledged this failure and apologised. The appeals procedure has also changed since Ms C's appeal.

We found that the feedback provided to Ms C after the re-examination of her thesis was reasonable and that her appeal was processed properly. Therefore, we did not upheld these complaints.

Finally, we found that Ms C had been given the wrong advice about visa matters at certain points, however there was also evidence that information provided to Ms C was on the basis of information from the Home Office, which the university were obliged to accept and pass on. On balance, we did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about how the housing association had dealt with her reports of anti-social behaviour and that there had been failures in their communication with her.

We found that, although the association were unable to share the details of the actions they had taken when Mrs C reported anti-social behaviour, they had followed their anti-social behaviour policy and taken appropriate action. We did not uphold this aspect of complaint.

The association acknowledged occasions when their communication was poor and apologised for this. We upheld this aspect of the complaint but did not make any recommendations.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment given to her late father (Mr A) after his GP referred him to the board for neurology treatment. Mr A had his first neurology appointment and the following month was diagnosed with a rare type of cancer. He was told that he would require no treatment. However, three months later he attended the emergency department at Forth Valley Royal Hospital with chest and abdominal pain and was admitted to the hospital. Mrs C complained about Mr A's care and treatment by both nursing and clinical staff, and about the lack of information she and her family were given. Mr A died some weeks later, and Mrs C said that the family had been unaware of the seriousness of Mr A's illness and its prognosis and, as such, they were shocked and unprepared for his death.

We took independent advice from consultants in emergency medicine and haematology (medicine of the blood) and from a registered nurse. We found that Mr A's emergency treatment had been reasonable and appropriate and that he was assessed and managed properly. Afterwards, when Mr A was admitted to the ward, the approach to his illness was watchful waiting. We found that his death could not have been anticipated. For these reasons we did not uphold the complaints about the care and treatment given to Mr A by clinical staff.

We did find that there had been some failures in his nursing care and that there were gaps and inconsistencies in his medical notes, and so we upheld Mrs C's complaint about nursing care. However, we noted that the board had already apologised and taken action with regards to these failings, and therefore we made no further recommendations in this regard.

While Mrs C was unhappy about the level of information given to her family, we were satisfied that they had been kept informed of Mr A's deteriorating condition, but that his imminent death could not have been foretold. On balance, we did not uphold this part of the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the practice regarding the handling and communication of decisions to reduce or remove three medications he was prescribed for chronic pain. The practice had taken steps to reduce these medications, as they considered a continued consumption of a high dosage of opiate medication was placing Mr C at risk of further health problems and addiction. However, Mr C was concerned that his pain was no longer being suitably managed and also that he was not adequately involved in the decision making process.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser. We found that the clinical decision to reduce the medications was correct, and in line with relevant guidelines. We were also satisfied that the decision to remove the prescription for one of the medications was reasonably handled and communicated. For this reason, we did not uphold the complaint about this prescription. However, we considered that the practice had failed to appropriately discuss the decisions to reduce the dosage of the other two medications with Mr C in advance of the reduction. As such, we upheld these two complaints.

Although we upheld the complaints we found that, in response to Mr C's initial complaints, it was clear that the practice had accepted the failings in question, apologised for them, and taken steps to ensure these mistakes would not be repeated. As such, we did not make any recommendations.