North East Scotland

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about the failure by Inverurie Hospital (the Hospital) to admit his wife to a palliative care suite.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  staff failed to communicate effectively with Mrs C's GP prior to transfer (upheld);
• (b)  staff made ineffective use of the palliative care suite (not upheld);
• (c)  staff failed to communicate effectively with Mrs C's family (no finding); and
• (d)  the nursing records failed to comply with the regulations (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i)  apologises to the family for their communication failures; and
• (ii)  provides evidence to show the new documentation tool has been audited to demonstrate that nursing records adhere to minimum standards.

Overview

The Ombudsman received a number of complaints from parents (the Parents) of patients at the Practice about delayed orthodontic treatment at the Practice.  The Practice had advised the Parents that the delays were not the fault of the Practice but NHS National Services Scotland (NHSNSS) which must give the Practice approval to commence orthodontic treatment.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  there was a delay by the Practice in carrying out orthodontic treatment (not upheld); and
• (b)  there was a delay by NHSNSS in granting approval for orthodontic work to commence (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Practice and NHSNSS continue meaningful discussions to decide the circumstances where radiographs are required in individual cases which require prior approval for the Practice to commence orthodontic treatment.

The Practice and NHSNSS have accepted the recommendation and will act on it accordingly.

Overview

An Advocacy Worker (Ms C) complained on behalf of the family of an elderly woman (Mrs A) who had been a patient at Glasgow Royal Infirmary (the Hospital).  She raised a number of concerns about the nursing care provided, communication with the family and procedures for discharge.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  there was a lack of communication with the family, in particular in relation to whether or not Mrs A had a stroke while in hospital (partially upheld);
• (b)  the standard of nursing care provided by some nursing staff was poor (not upheld);
• (c)  there was no effective planning of Mrs A's discharge from hospital (upheld); and
• (d)  pancreatitis was given as the secondary cause of death even though the family's understanding was that this condition had been successfully treated (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i)  highlight to staff the need to manage the expectations of the families of patients and to be aware of the need to communicate in non-technical language and provide clear explanations;
• (ii)  undertake an audit of the new care plan documentation and share the results of that audit with her;
• (iii)  apologise to Mrs A's family for their failure to carry out their own discharge policy effectively and the inconvenience, distress and concern that this caused; and
• (iv)  audit their discharge policy to ensure that it is now being fully implemented.

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

Overview

Mr C complained that as a result of a review of specific grazing regulations  initiated by the Crofters Commission (the Commission) he had suffered a reduction of souming  which resulted in a lack of grazing for cattle between 6 months and 24 months old.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Commission did not adequately explain the effects of the proposed revision of the Grazing Regulations and that this has adversely affected Mr C's use of his croft (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Commission:

• (i)       in any future work relating to grazing regulations consider providing working definitions of key terms; and
• (ii)      pursue with Mr C the scope for them to assist in achieving a mutually acceptable resolution of issues between him and the grazings committees.

Overview

The complaint concerns Glasgow City Council (the Council)'s handling of a request from the Complainant (Mr C) for accreditation as a journalist.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council had acted unreasonably in refusing to recognise Mr C as a journalist (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

While I do not uphold Mr C's complaint I suggest that, to avoid any possible confusion in the future, the Council consider producing a written policy detailing the criteria used by them when considering requests for recognition from journalists.

The Ombudsman has no further recommendations to make.

Overview

The complaint concerned The Robert Gordon University (the University)'s decision to reject an appeal and to allow a student to continue his course.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Assessment Boards reached their decisions on the basis of incomplete information, that agreements with staff were never implemented and that work presented was not marked (partially upheld);
• (b)  grounds for rejecting the appeal were contrary to stated University policy (not upheld);
• (c)  the course leader had a conflict of interest when acting as Chairman of the Assessment Board (not upheld); and
• (d)  the University's handling of the matter demonstrated poor information management (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the University emphasise to its academic staff the importance of following carefully the Academic Regulations when dealing with cases like Mr C's.

The University have accepted the Ombudsman's recommendation and will act on it accordingly.  She asks that they notify her when it is implemented.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C), through his Advocacy Worker (Tthe Advocacy Worker), raised a concern about the circumstances which led to him discharging himself from hospital.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that staff failed to take into account Mr C's mental health problems and as a result he discharged himself from hospital (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about the treatment her late husband (Mr C) received at the Royal Alexandra Hospital, Paisley (Hospital 1) from 1 August 2005 to 15 October 2005.  She had concerns about his clinical treatment; lack of communication between medical and surgical staff and the family and inadequate complaints handling.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)      Mr C' s clinical treatment was inadequate (not upheld);
• (b)      medical staff failed to communicate between specialities and with the family (partially upheld); and
• (c)      there was inadequate complaints handling (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i)       remind staff of the importance of communication with family members;
• (ii)      conduct an audit to ensure that responses to complaints are within NHS Complaints Procedure Guidelines; and
• (iii)      conduct an investigation into the circumstances which led to a letter being issued to Mr C nearly three months after his death enquiring whether he wished to remain on the waiting list for orthopaedic surgery and offer a sincere apology to Mrs C for the distress which was caused.  On this point she would also draw to the Board's attention to recommendation (ii) of report 200502722 published in September 2006.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) was unhappy with an investigation undertaken by the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care (the Commission) into his complaint that his mother (Mrs D) had been prevented from leaving the Care Home (the Home) where she was resident.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the initial report and subsequent review of Mr C's complaint about the Home were flawed.  In particular, that all the evidence was not taken into account and the initial report focussed on the social work department and not on the complaint actually made (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman makes no recommendations.

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the handling by Angus Council (the Council) of planning proposals for the extension of church premises to the rear of their home.  Unauthorised changes were made by the developer to the original proposals.  These were the subject of a revised application which was refused by the Council and an enforcement notice was served.  The developer subsequently appealed successfully to the Scottish Ministers.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)      the Council failed initially to check the relative position of the proposed extension to adjacent houses prior to granting planning consent in 2002 (partially upheld);
• (b)      when an application for a building warrant was submitted on 20 May 2003, the Planning Service failed to respond regarding the discrepancy between these plans and those for which they had granted planning consent in the previous year (not upheld); and
• (c)      the Council did not in the autumn of 2004 properly consider the issue of a stop notice to prevent further work on the extension (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendation to make.