Mid Scotland and Fife

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns that her husband (Mr C) had been wrongly diagnosed as having Bells Palsy by an NHS24 Nurse Adviser (the NHS24 Adviser) after he contacted NHS24 complaining of numbness in his face and index finger, slurred speech and a headache.  Mrs C also complained that Mr C had been informed of the diagnosis inappropriately by the NHS24 Adviser and that he should have arranged for an ambulance for Mr C and treated him as a medical emergency.  Instead, Mr C was advised by the NHS24 Adviser to attend the Primary Care Emergency Centre (PCEC) and an appointment made for him there.

Mr C drove to the PCEC himself and was seen by a GP (GP 1), who made a diagnosis of Transient Ischaemic Attack (TIA).  After this consultation, he was allowed home and advised to see his own GP if he did not begin to feel better.  Mr C then waited in the PCEC car park until Mrs C arrived.  He re-attended the PCEC where, after a 30 minute wait, he was seen by a second GP (GP 2).  Mr C was then admitted to hospital and found to have suffered a stroke.  Mrs C complained about the consultation with GP 1 and the care offered to Mr C by the PCEC and Lanarkshire NHS Board (the Board).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Mr C was wrongly diagnosed and informed inappropriately of the diagnosis over the telephone by the NHS24 Adviser (upheld);
• (b) the NHS24 Adviser failed to treat Mr C as a medical emergency and should have arranged an ambulance, instead of sending Mr C to an out-of-hours GP practice (upheld);
• (c) GP 1 diagnosed Mr C wrongly and, therefore, treated him inappropriately (upheld);
• (d) GP 1 did not offer to admit Mr C to hospital (no finding);
• (e) GP 1 failed to record sufficient data about his consultation with Mr C (upheld);
• (f) GP 1 rushed his consultation with Mr C (not upheld) and;
• (g) Mr C waited an unreasonably long time on re-attending the PCEC (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman had no recommendations to make in relation to NHS24.

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i) ensure that GP 1 shares this report with his appraiser at annual review and that he reflects on the comments made in this report regarding the diagnosis of a TIA;
• (ii) review GP 1’s record-keeping to ensure it meets the required standards of the regulatory bodies; and
• (iii) write to Mr C with an apology for the failures which have been identified in this report.

The Board have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant, Ms C, raised a number of concerns about what happened when she attended her GP Practice (the Practice) and about what happened when she subsequently made a complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the treatment provided to Ms C when she attended the Practice on 2 August 2004 was inappropriate (not upheld);
• (b) Ms C's removal from the Practice list was unfair (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that:

• (i) the Practice apologise to Ms C for the shortcomings identified in this report;
• (ii) the Practice undertake training on complaint handling and the guidance and Regulations governing the removal of patients from the Practice list and, following this training, the GPs and the Practice Manager meet to discuss and draw up a Practice protocol for complaint handling and, specifically, for removal of patients from their list, a copy of which to be sent to the Board's Medical Director for approval and to the Ombudsman for her information; and
• (iii) GP 1 discusses the issue of how he dealt with this complaint at his next annual appraisal as part of his continuing professional development.

The Practice and GP 1 have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns that South Lanarkshire Council (the Council) had not given proper consideration to a planning application for a listed building, had not dealt with enquiries properly or satisfactorily, that an informative guide produced by the Council was deficient and that there were flaws in the Council's complaint handling processes.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council did not give proper consideration to the planning application (not upheld);
• (b) the Council did not deal with Mr C's enquiries properly or satisfactorily (not upheld);
• (c) the Council's publication 'A Guide to the Planning Decision-Making Process' was deficient (not upheld); and
• (d) the Council's complaints process was flawed (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council apologise to Mr C for not responding appropriately to his point in letters of 19 March 2005, 28 March 2005 and 2 April 2005 advising that he had not received the promised letter of 11 March 2005.

The Council have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) raised concerns about the handling by Fife Council (the Council) of their representations about breaches of a planning consent granted for change of use of adjacent premises (the Premises) to a restaurant/takeaway and for the installation of an external flue.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to enforce conditions attached to the planning consent which were imposed to protect the amenity of neighbours (partially upheld);
• (b) otherwise failed to resolve the effect on Mr and Mrs  C's amenity of noise and odours emanating from the Premises (partially upheld); and
• (c) took an unacceptable length of time to deal with Mr and Mrs C's complaints and did not keep them properly updated (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommended that the Council:

• (i) review the wording of conditions used in their planning consents with particular reference to the appropriateness of using a condition such as condition 3 with the present wording;
• (ii) actively continue to monitor compliance with the planning consent issued on 30 June 2003; and
• (iii) apologise to Mr and Mrs C for the failings in the Council's handling of their complaints.

The Council have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about South Lanarkshire Council (the Council)'s handling of his enquiries regarding outline planning permission for construction of a one bedroom single storey dwelling on his land adjacent to his home.  Mr C also complained that the Council had failed to correctly process a planning application by a neighbour (Mr N), to Mr C's detriment.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) gave Mr C incorrect or misleading advice regarding his initial enquiries about an application for outline planning permission to build a one bedroom single storey dwelling adjacent to his property (not upheld);
• (b) gave incorrect status to Mr N's planning application, to Mr C's detriment (not upheld);
• (c) failed to deal with Mr C's initial planning enquiries within the correct timescales (partially upheld); and
• (d) failed to address the specific points in Mr C's letters and emails of complaint (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologise to Mr C for failing to deal with his enquiry in accordance with Council guidance and provide feedback to the staff involved in this case on the timescales contained in the guidance; and
• (ii) apologise to Mr C for failing to adequately address all issues raised in his complaints.

The Council have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns regarding, and springing from, the way her daughter (Miss C)'s exclusion from a school (School 1) in Clackmannanshire Council (the Council)'s area was handled.  Mrs C had specific concerns about:  the exclusion process; the process for enrolling Miss C for her examinations; the way in which the possibility of Miss C attending a new school was handled; and the decision not to allow Miss C to go on a school trip.  In respect of all these complaints, Mrs C felt that she and her daughter had been treated unfairly by the Council and by schools within the Council's area.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that

• (a) School 1 failed to provide Miss C with a date on which her exclusion would finish and on which she could return to School 1 (upheld);
• (b) School 1 told Miss C that she would not be able to return to School 1 until the outcome of her appeal was known. Miss C believed that she should have been allowed to return while her appeal was pending (not upheld);
• (c) School 1 failed to tell Miss C and Mrs C who would attend a meeting at School 1 on 6 February 2006 (upheld);
• (d) School 1 failed to inform the Director of Services to People that Miss C had been excluded (not upheld);
• (e) School 1 failed to give Miss C direct teaching input while she was excluded from School 1 for a month (upheld);
• (f) School 1 unnecessarily called a school in another Council's area (School 2) on 20 March 2006 despite the fact that Mrs C had already informed the Council's staff that they were moving to another town outwith the Council's area (not upheld);
• (g) School 1 released Miss C's personal information to School 2 even though, at that time, she did not attend there (not upheld);
• (h) School 1 intentionally and unnecessarily caused alarm to School 2 by telling them about Miss C and her family on 20 March 2006, which gave a bad impression of Miss C at School 2 where she was not yet a pupil (not upheld);
• (i) School 1 intentionally sent a record of Miss C's exclusion to School 2 on 21 March 2006 even though the Council had lifted the reference to exclusion from the file prior to 15 March 2006 (not upheld);
• (j) School 1 failed to inform School 2 that Miss C had returned to School 1 on 27February 2006 (not upheld);
• (k) School 1 failed to enrol Miss C with the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) at the same time as enrolling all other pupils (not upheld);
• (l) School 1 failed to enrol Miss C with the SQA towards the end of April 2006 when School 2 called urgently regarding Miss C's exam timetable (not upheld);
• (m) School 1 failed to inform the SQA of Miss C's change of address when enrolling her with the SQA at the end of May (not upheld);
• (n) School 1 failed to provide satisfactory reasons why Miss C was not allowed to go on a school trip in May 2005 and unfairly discriminated against Miss C by not allowing her to go on the trip (not upheld);
• (o) the Council 'nagged' Mrs C and Miss C to consider enrolling at two other schools in the Council's area (School 3) and (School 4), even though Mrs C had made clear that she wished Miss C to return to School 1 (not upheld);
• (p) the Council refused to accept Mrs C and Miss C's decision to return to School 1 during a meeting on 22 February 2006 (not upheld);
• (q) the Council inappropriately called School 4 about Miss C without the consent or knowledge of Miss C or Mrs C (not upheld);
• (r) the Council inappropriately requested that Mrs C enrol Miss C at School 4 when Mrs C had never thought of enrolling her there (not upheld);
• (s) the Council repeatedly pressed Mrs C and Miss C to reconsider enrolling Miss C at either School 3 or School 4, causing emotional harm to them (not upheld);
• (t) School 3 failed to respond to Mrs C's email requesting that Miss C attend School 3 (not upheld);
• (u) School 3 ignored Mrs C's emails in which she said that she had changed her mind and wanted Miss C to stay at School 1 (not upheld);
• (v) School 3 inappropriately sent an email to Mrs C requesting a meeting with the rector of School 3 even though Mrs C had already stated that she wanted Miss C to return to School 1 (not upheld);
• (w) School 3 inappropriately requested, over the telephone, that Mrs C attend a meeting even though she had already informed School 3 and the Council that Miss C wanted to go back to School 1 (not upheld); and
• (x) School 3's actions referred to in complaints (v) and (w) were done with the intention of putting Miss C off returning to School 1, possibly on the instructions of the Council (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) either review their Exclusion Policy to match their normal practice or take steps to ensure that their normal practice is in line with their current Exclusion Policy;
• (ii) apologise to Miss C for not providing her with the direct teaching input to which she was entitled during her exclusion; and
• (iii) remind relevant officers at School 1 of the requirements of the Exclusion Policy so that, in future, arrangements are made for pupils with a Stage 3 exclusion to be provided direct teaching input.

The Council have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the way South Lanarkshire Council (the Council) administered his assessment for Council Tax Benefit.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) took an unacceptable amount of time to resolve this issue (upheld); and
• (b) failed to investigate Mr C's complaints against two members of staff and also failed to follow the Council's complaints procedure when they received his formal complaint (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) write to Mr C to apologise for the delays in assessing his claim for Council Tax Benefit; and
• (ii) reinforce to staff the importance of ensuring that formal complaints are considered in line with the Council's complaints procedure.

The Council have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, raised a number of concerns against Fife Council (the Council), that the Council had not correctly handled a planning application (the Application) submitted by a third party, for the erection of dwelling houses and flats.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) councillors were not informed of the facts connected to the Application (not upheld);
• (b) potential problems were brought to the attention of Council officials in 46 letters of objection, however, these objections did not appear to have been brought to the attention of councillors (not upheld); and
• (c) access problems for vehicles, including refuse and emergency vehicles, were not properly considered (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant, Mrs C, raised concerns that her late father (Mr A) had not received adequate and appropriate care and treatment from Fife NHS Board (the Board), that the Board had not adequately responded to her complaints and that the action plan generated as a result of her complaints was not adequate.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Mr A's medical treatment and care were inadequate and unsatisfactory in:
• (i)  the Urology Department of Queen Margaret Hospital, Dunfermline (upheld);
• (ii)  the Accident and Emergency Department of The Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy (not upheld);
• (iii)  Ward 14 of The Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy (not upheld); and
• (iv)  Ward 2 of Glenrothes Hospital (upheld);
• (b) the Board did not adequately respond to Mrs C's complaints (partially upheld); and
• (c) the action plan generated as a result of Mrs C's complaints was not adequate (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i) apologise to Mr A's family for the inadequate care and treatment Mr A received at the Urology Department of Queen Margaret Hospital, Dunfermline and in Ward 2 of Glenrothes Hospital;
• (ii) review their procedures on the investigation of symptoms of cancer of the prostate;
• (iii) satisfy themselves that Specialist Urology Nurse and the Urologist have the appropriate competencies to carry out the care required by patients presenting with the symptoms of cancer of the prostate;
• (iv) put in place a firm timescale for when patients in all areas of Glenrothes Hospital will have access to a call bell system;
• (v) review their procedures for the communication of information between departments and wards and the procedures ward staff follow when assessing a patient's well-being on the ward;
• (vi) review their procedures and guidance for the recommendation of catheterisation, and emphasise these to staff in Ward 2 of Glenrothes Hospital;
• (vii) undertake a full audit of their record-keeping procedures, guidance and training, and strengthen these as necessary; and
• (viii) introduce guidance to all staff regarding how to respond to requests for statements on complaints, with specific reference to consulting medical or nursing notes when dealing with events which they were not personally party to.

The Board have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant, Mrs C, raised concerns that her late father (Mr A) had not received adequate and appropriate care and treatment from Fife NHS Board (the Board), that the Board had not adequately responded to her complaints and that the action plan generated as a result of her complaints was not adequate.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Mr A's medical treatment and care were inadequate and unsatisfactory in:
• (i)  the Urology Department of Queen Margaret Hospital, Dunfermline (upheld);
• (ii)  the Accident and Emergency Department of The Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy (not upheld);
• (iii)  Ward 14 of The Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy (not upheld); and
• (iv)   Ward 2 of Glenrothes Hospital (upheld);
• (b) the Board did not adequately respond to Mrs C's complaints (partially upheld); and
• (c) the action plan generated as a result of Mrs C's complaints was not adequate (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i) apologise to Mr A's family for the inadequate care and treatment MrA received at the Urology Department of Queen Margaret Hospital, Dunfermline and in Ward 2 of Glenrothes Hospital;
• (ii) review their procedures on the investigation of symptoms of cancer of the prostate;
• (iii) satisfy themselves that Specialist Urology Nurse and the Urologist have the appropriate competencies to carry out the care required by patients presenting with the symptoms of cancer of the prostate;
• (iv) put in place a firm timescale for when patients in all areas of Glenrothes Hospital will have access to a call bell system;
• (v) review their procedures for the communication of information between departments and wards and the procedures ward staff follow when assessing a patient's well-being on the ward;
• (vi) review their procedures and guidance for the recommendation of catheterisation, and emphasise these to staff in Ward 2 of Glenrothes Hospital;
• (vii) undertake a full audit of their record-keeping procedures, guidance and training, and strengthen these as necessary; and
• (viii) introduce guidance to all staff regarding how to respond to requests for statements on complaints, with specific reference to consulting medical or nursing notes when dealing with events which they were not personally party to.

The Board have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.