Upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his mother (Mrs A). He said Mrs A's GP practice had not diagnosed quickly enough that the symptoms she was suffering from were side effects of the medication she had been prescribed. Mr C said these side effects were well known. He did not believe the practice had been as aware as they should have been of these side effects, which had caused Mrs A unnecessary and prolonged suffering.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser on the care and treatment provided. The adviser said that the practice had reasonably considered Mrs A's ill health to be the result of a possible reoccurrence of breast cancer and had sought to rule this out. However, under national guidance for prescribing this medication, the practice should have been monitoring Mrs A's lung and liver function and they had failed to do so. The adviser noted the practice had subsequently taken all reasonable steps to address the failings in this case.

We found that the practice had not provided reasonable care and treatment, but they had taken the appropriate action to address this. We made no further recommendations.

Summary

Mr C complained that a member of prison staff had acted unreasonably by making a comment which he felt was discriminatory and constituted harassment. We carefully considered the information Mr C had provided and sought further information from the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), which included a copy of their investigation into Mr C's equality and diversity complaint. The investigation found that there was a basis for unintentionally caused harassment in relation to a protected characteristic. Even though the member of staff did not mean to cause Mr C harm, Mr C found the comment to be offensive and humiliating, particularly as he was unaware of the context in which it had been written. We upheld his complaint that the member of staff had acted unreasonably in making the comment.

As a result of Mr C's complaint, the prison had apologised to Mr C. They had also taken steps to ensure that the member of staff was aware of how his actions had affected Mr C, and identified relevant training. The SPS had also used this case as a case study at a recent national meeting about equality and diversity, and it was to be raised at the next local meeting. Therefore, no recommendations were required.

We noted that the letter to Mr C communicating the outcome of the equality and diversity investigation could have been clearer and written in plain English. We highlighted this to the SPS.

Summary

Ms C attended her GP with swelling and hardening tissues between her vagina and rectum. The GP prescribed antibiotics to be taken for seven days. She was told to return in one week, or sooner if her symptoms became worse. Three days later, she returned to the practice and saw a different GP as the pain was worse. The medical notes also state that she was experiencing diarrhoea and vomiting. She was examined and the medical records indicate that her vaginal symptoms were no worse, and that the GP considered the diarrhoea and vomiting to be side effects of the antibiotics. On Ms C's request the GP prescribed anti-sickness medication. The GP told her to take the antibiotics for only five days, recorded that there was no sign of infection and gave her a one-week sick note. Six days later, Ms C attended the first GP again, who diagnosed a perianal (situated in or affecting the area around the anus) abscess. Ms C was admitted to hospital. Ms C complained that, at her second appointment, the GP had failed to provide adequate medical advice, care and treatment.

We obtained independent advice from one of our GP advisers. We concluded that, while the care and treatment provided to Ms C was reasonable, it was unreasonable that Ms C was not given any specific instructions by the GP at the second appointment about what to do if her vaginal symptoms did not improve or got worse. As this particular failure was significant, we upheld Ms C's complaint. During our investigation, the practice apologised to Ms C and the GP reflected on her practice. The GP explained that, in future, she would try to give more specific instructions for patients so they are sure they can come back if they need to. Therefore, we did not consider that we needed to make any specific recommendations.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to follow their anti-bullying policies when they were informed of incidents of bullying against his son. In particular, Mr C was concerned about an incident, which occurred in early 2015, which was not dealt with as an incident of bullying. He was also concerned that the council failed to deal with previous incidents of bullying appropriately.

The council's investigation found no evidence of earlier incidents of bullying which were not properly dealt with at the time. They did, however, acknowledge that the incident which occurred in early 2015 should have been handled differently and in line with their anti-bullying policy.

Mr C was not happy with the council's response and he approached our office. We noted previous incidents recorded by the council but, as Mr C had not provided any evidence or detail of previous incidents, we could not conclude that there were other instances which the council had failed to record. We agreed with the council that they had failed to deal with the incident in early 2015 in line with their anti-bullying policy and, as a result, we upheld the complaint. We found that the steps taken by the council following their review of the complaint were appropriate and comprehensive, and we made no recommendations.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about the prison's handling of his complaint about staff entering his cell and removing all items except his mattress and pillow. When Mr C made his initial complaint, the prison took steps to investigate what had happened. Following that, staff were reminded of the appropriate steps that should be taken when a prisoner makes threats about self-harm. However, the prison failed to identify that Mr C was only left with a mattress and pillow. Because of that, the governor incorrectly stated that he was left with all of his bedding items. This could have been avoided if steps had been taken to clarify exactly what bedding Mr C was left with. In addition, we reviewed the written replies that were issued to Mr C's in response to his complaints and we did not consider that the points he raised were addressed appropriately. Therefore, we concluded that the prison failed to deal with Mr C's complaints appropriately and we upheld his complaint to us.

Summary

Miss C complained that the association had not communicated with her about her rent arrears. Miss C said that she requested a breakdown of the arrears when she left her tenancy in February 2014 but did not receive one. In July and October 2014 Miss C was sent letters about her arrears. She contacted the association in October but she did not receive a reply to her email. Miss C said she contacted them in December by email as well. Miss C contacted them again in March 2015 and the association sent her a breakdown of the arrears.

The association said they could not find any evidence of an email sent in December. However, they did acknowledge that they had not responded to the October email and apologised for this. They explained that they had changed their procedures to ensure this does not happen again.

We upheld the complaint as the association did not reply to the email that Miss C sent them in October. However, we found no evidence that Miss C had requested a breakdown of the arrears in February or December. In light of the action already taken by the association, we did not make any recommendations.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council delayed in carrying out repairs and upgrade works to her home. We found that the council acknowledged there had been delays, and so we upheld Miss C's complaint. We were satisfied that the council had taken reasonable steps to remedy the situation, and so we did not make any recommendations in this case.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council had failed to maintain their promise to ensure that the glass waste from the bins outside her property was collected as scheduled. When we asked them for information, the council took the opportunity to review the complaint and told us that they were sorry for their failure to sustain the level of service that Ms C was entitled to receive, and apologised for their shortcomings. They recognised that the short-term resolutions they had previously put in place for Ms C had not resolved the matter, and told us what they were doing to ensure a resolution.

We upheld Ms C's complaint as we found that the council had been at fault, but we were satisfied with the action they proposed. Although we made no recommendations as they had already taken action on Ms C's concerns, we did suggest that they write again, apologising for the failure in customer service.

Summary

Ms C, who is an independent advocate, complained to the council on behalf of her clients (Mr and Mrs A) that their children's school had not addressed their children's support needs, not protected their well-being, treated them unfairly, and that Mr and Mrs A's complaints to the school were not dealt with appropriately.

We reviewed the correspondence between Ms C and the council, their complaints handling procedures and the evidence considered in the council's investigation. We found that there was unreasonable delay in the handling of the complaint as it was not promptly allocated to the investigating officer and, although they apologised for the delay, the council did not explain their error. The investigation, once underway, was thorough and there was no clear evidence to support the views of the parents. As the council had taken steps to address the allocation of complaints and recognised what they needed to put in place to rebuild trust between the parents and the school, we made no further recommendations.

Summary

Miss A is profoundly deaf and uses British Sign Language (BSL). Ms C, an advocate, complained on her behalf that the board did not arrange a BSL interpreter for her. We found that Miss A was left in Ninewells Hospital without an interpreter for nearly three days, which was unacceptable. The board had initially tried to get an interpreter, but it was then left to Miss A's family to do so. When they could not, the board arranged for an interpreter to attend. There were also problems in ensuring that interpreters were there at the same time as doctors.

The board agreed it is their responsibility, not that of the patient's family, to try to secure an interpreter. In responding to our enquiries, they told us that staff had been made aware of the complaint and knew the process for booking interpreter services. They had added phone numbers for five interpreters to staff guidance. Ward staff had been reminded to escalate to senior staff if they experienced difficulties securing an interpreter out-of-hours. The board also apologised for not providing an interpreter to support Miss A. After Ms C complained to us, they entered into a legal agreement with the Equality and Human Rights Commission and committed to trying to ensure that every patient with additional communication requirements receives the same level of services as those without such requirements. In view of this, although we upheld the complaint, we did not make any recommendations.

Ms C also complained that wards did not display a poster advertising BSL interpreter services. The board told us that all wards are required to display this, but could not confirm that it was displayed in the wards Miss A was in when in hospital. Because of this, on balance we upheld this complaint. However, we did not make recommendations, as the board now carry out a weekly audit of posters, ensuring that they are displayed in every clinical area.