Mid Scotland and Fife

Overview

The complainants, Mr C and Ms A, raised a number of concerns that, following a routine laparoscopy investigation for an infertility problem at Stirling Royal Infirmary (the Hospital) on 9 August 2005, Ms A was admitted as an emergency patient to the Hospital on 12 August 2005 and received inadequate care and treatment.  Thereafter, Mr C and Ms A also complained that Forth Valley NHS Board (the Board) had not treated Mr C and Ms A either appropriately or fairly as patients of their Infertility Service (the Service).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Ms A received inadequate care and treatment from the Hospital (not upheld); and
• (b) the Board's infertility service made matters worse (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the handling of his complaint about the investigation by the education authority of an incident involving his son and another pupil in the school playground at his primary school.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that North Lanarkshire Council (the Council) did not:

• (a) properly investigate Mr C's complaint (upheld); and
• (b) deal in a timely manner with Mr C's complaint and his request for a copy of the Council's investigation report and the Council's policy of response to assault in a playground (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologise to Mr C for the failings identified;
• (ii) remind staff dealing with complaints of the importance of explaining how they have reached their decisions; and
• (iii) apologise to Mr C for not sending sooner the two documents he requested.

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, raised a number of concerns about the care and treatment provided to his mother, Mrs A at Monklands Hospital (the Hospital) and the Beatson Oncology Centre (the Centre).  The Hospital is managed by Lanarkshire NHS Board (Board 1).  The Centre is managed by Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board (Board 2).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) there was an unacceptable delay in the Hospital making a correct diagnosis (upheld);
• (b) the Hospital's decision to operate on Mrs A was incorrect (upheld);
• (c) Mrs A's prognosis was not adequately explained to the family by either the Hospital or the Centre (partially upheld); and
• (d) Mr C's complaints about the conditions in the Hospital ward were not dealt with appropriately (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that Board 1 apologise to Mr C for the delay in making the diagnosis and for making the incorrect decision to operate.

The Ombudsman recommends that both Boards apologise to Mr C for the fact that Mrs A's prognosis was not adequately explained to the family and review the way that a poor prognosis is explained to patients and their families.

The Ombudsman will send a copy of this report to SIGN for their consideration when Guideline 61 on post-menopausal bleeding is reviewed later this year.

Overview

Two neighbours (Mr C and Mr D), complained to the Ombudsman that Fife Council (the Council) had not taken appropriate planning enforcement action in respect of a new house which was being constructed adjacent to their respective properties.  They made further complaints about the Council's actions in granting planning consent for two windows which overlooked their properties.  During the investigation, a further complaint was made regarding the construction of a patio area.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) delayed in taking enforcement action by allowing building work, which was not in accordance with the plans, to continue despite Mr C and Mr D's complaints (not upheld);
• (b) failed to deal with Mr C and Mr D's complaint regarding the orientation of the house (upheld);
• (c) failed to properly consider the effect on Mr C and Mr D's privacy before granting planning permission in respect of the house's lounge windows (not upheld); and
• (d) failed to take action in respect of the patio area having said they would (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council;

• (i) apologise to Mr C and Mr D for their failure to adequately address their complaint, the shortcomings in reporting on how the incorrect labelling of the plans and the issue of overlooking the gardens have been dealt with; and
• (ii) review their system of dealing with errors in application plans to avoid situations in which members of the public might be misled.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the treatment he received when he attended the Accident and Emergency Department at Stirling Royal Infirmary (the Hospital) on 24 June 2007, following a road traffic accident.

Specific complaint and conclusions

The complaint which has been investigated is that Mr C received inadequate treatment when he attended the Accident and Emergency Department at the Hospital on two occasions on 24 June 2007, following a road traffic accident (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that Forth Valley NHS Board:

• (i) apologise to Mr C for the failings identified in this report;
• (ii) share this report with the Senior House Officer so that she can reflect on her actions; and
• (iii) consider using the circumstances of this complaint in an anonymised form as a learning tool for junior staff working in Accident and Emergency.

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

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, broke his leg while playing rugby.  He complained about his treatment at Queen Margaret Hospital (the Hospital), where the Accident and Emergency doctor (the Doctor) diagnosed a soft tissue injury.  Mr C was also dissatisfied about how his complaint was handled.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Mr C's fracture was not diagnosed (upheld);
• (b) Mr C's indication of the location of the pain was ignored both by the Doctor and the bank radiographer (no finding);
• (c) different treatment would have been provided, had the fracture been diagnosed earlier (not upheld); and
• (d) Mr C's complaint was not handled adequately (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that Fife NHS Board (the Board):

• (i) share this report with the Doctor and the clinicians in the Accident and Emergency Department to allow them to reflect on it; and
• (ii) remind staff of the importance of obtaining information from all staff, including locum and bank staff, in relation to complaints; and
• (iii) remind staff to respond to complaints in a timely manner or to request an extension if they are unable to do so, in line with the NHS complaints procedure.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) said that a neck injury prevented her from being able to lie in the conventional, fully recumbent, position in a dentist’s chair.  Her dentist (the Dentist) refused to treat her, as a back problem prevented him from working on patients that were not in the conventional position.  Mrs C had to find another dentist that would treat her in a more comfortable position.  Mrs C complained about the dental practice (the Practice)'s handling of her situation and the attitude of the Dentist and other staff at the Practice.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Dentist unfairly refused to treat Mrs C (not upheld);
• (a) the Dentist failed to provide appropriate information to help Mrs C access the dental treatment that she required (no finding); and
• (b) the Practice’s complaint handling was poor (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman draws the Dentist’s attention to the General Dental Council Standards for Dental Professionals guidance, which suggests producing a public version of the Practice’s complaints procedure that can be prominently displayed and made easily available to patients.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of issues with North Lanarkshire Council (the Council) concerning the handling of the storage and subsequent destruction of his belongings.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that there was insufficient contact with Mr C before disposing of his belongings which had been held in storage (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) include within their new Storage Procedures, advice for applicants using the storage facilities that they should detail any valuable items on the inventory; and
• (ii) ensure that a copy of the signed inventory is retained on the relevant file.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about the treatment that he received for his urological condition and the fact that he was not appropriately referred for surgery.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Fife NHS Board (the Board) failed to refer Mr C for surgery (upheld);
• (a) the Board did not provide timely follow-up after Mr C's supra-pubic catheterisation (not upheld); and
• (b) unnecessary investigations were carried out prior to Mr C's referral to another hospital (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i) apologise to Mr C for failing to list him for surgery; and
• (ii) take steps to ensure that patients are followed up when required.

The Board 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 they had not, in a fitting manner, considered his offer to purchase land at a site within East Fife (the Site).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) improperly changed their position by not selling two plots of land at the Site which they had marketed during February 2005 (not upheld); and
• (a) had not acted properly, in delaying the sale until the development status was known (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

Although the Ombudsman has not upheld this complaint, she is pleased that the Council acknowledged there were gaps in their records of some of the processes involved, regarding their considerations of the development potential of the Site, as it is essential that written records are maintained to the highest standard possible, throughout all planning processes.  Therefore, the Ombudsman recommends that the Council review the circumstances which led to this failure; consider whether there are lessons to be learned from this; and advise her of the outcome.

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