North East Scotland

Overview

The complainant raised a number of concerns about the care and treatment that her mother received in Vale of Leven hospital (Hospital 1) prior to her death.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  medical and nursing staff were not able to tell Mrs C what was wrong with her mother and did not seem to recognise that her condition was deteriorating rapidly (partially upheld);
• (b)  it was inappropriate to prescribe five antibiotics (not upheld);
• (c)  it was inappropriate to use a catheter when her mother had a urine infection (not upheld); and
• (d)  it was inappropriate to perform a CT scan because her mother was too ill, and that no account was taken of the fact that her mother was claustrophobic culminating in her having a panic attack (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board emphasise to staff the importance of communicating with relatives and of keeping an appropriate note of what was said.

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

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised concerns about the number of times her mother (Mrs A) had been moved while a patient at the Vale of Leven Hospital (the Hospital).  Some of Mrs A's personal belongings had been mislaid and Ms C wondered whether staff had taken into account that the moves would affect Mrs A's psychological and physical care.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that staff failed to take into account the detrimental effect the multiple moves had on Mrs A and failed to take steps to ensure that all her personal belongings were moved with her (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a concern that staff at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary (the Hospital) had failed to remove a wound drain before he was discharged on 14 April 2005 following an operation and the length of time it took for his complaint to be investigated.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)       staff failed to ensure the wound drain was removed prior to discharge (upheld); and
• (b)       there was inadequate complaints handling (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the treatment his wife (Mrs C) received at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary (Hospital 1) and Dr Gray's Hospital, Elgin (Hospital 2) in 2005.

Specific complaint and conclusions

The complaint which has been investigated is that Mrs C received inadequate care and treatment from Hospital 1 and Hospital 2 in 2005 (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) said that he had been appointed to a Southside Housing Association (the Housing Association) Sub-Committee and then excluded from meetings.  He was also concerned that his complaint had not been heard at the final stage of the Housing Association's procedure.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)       Mr C was appointed to a Housing Association Sub-Committee and then excluded from meetings (not upheld); and
• (b)       the Housing Association did not consider his complaint at their appeal stage (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Housing Association clarify in information given to complainants the time limits for appeal and that they will not consider an appeal outwith the agreed timescales unless the complainant can provide good reasons for any delay.

The Housing Association have accepted the recommendation and will act on it accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised concerns that doctors at the Practice delayed referring her to hospital when she attended with an Achilles tendon injury.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)       there was a delay by doctors at the Practice in seeking a specialist opinion (upheld);
• (b)       the doctors failed to keep Mrs C under review and left it to her to decide if she needed to return for review appointments (not upheld); and
• (c)       there was incorrect information in the GP records which stated an ankle injury was the problem (no finding).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns that the contents of a psychological report which had been completed regarding his son (Child C) contained unverified and incorrect information and included a section which was not relevant to the actual diagnosis.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)       the Board would not withdraw or correct a psychological report that it knew to contain inaccurate information (not upheld); and
• (b)       psychological reports issued by the Board include a section which is not relevant and have no bearing on the actual diagnosis (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Miss C) raised a number of concerns about the treatment she received at the Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow (the Hospital) in July 2005 following an operation to remove her appendix.  The complainant was concerned that the management of the wound was poor and that staff had not told her that her appendix had been gangrenous and the wound was at risk of infection.  She also complained there was a failure to inform the thyroid clinic of the result of a blood test and that her antithyroid medication had been increased.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)       there was poor wound management and communication (not upheld); and
• (b)       staff failed to advise the thyroid clinic of the result of a blood test and that antithyroid medication had been increased (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board gives consideration to providing telephone or electronic updates to out-patient clinics when discharge letters for in-patient stays will not be ready prior to the next out-patient appointment.

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

Overview 

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns regarding the treatment provided to his wife (Mrs C) by the Mental Health Directorate. 

Specific complaint(s) and conclusion(s)

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Mrs C should have been assessed by a Community Psychiatric Nurse (CPN) (not upheld);
• (b) the care/treatment package provided to Mrs C was inadequate (not upheld); and
• (c) the Consultant failed to take appropriate action when Mr C pointed out errors in a letter which was copied to Mrs C’'s GP (not upheld]).

Redress and recommendation(s)

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised two specific complaints on behalf of her sister (Ms D), who she believed was wrongly discharged from NHS care. into Aberdeenshire Council (Local Authoritythe Council)'s care.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Scottish Executive procedures were not followed when tMsDhe complainant's sister was discharged from NHS care ( not upheld); and
• (b) the BoardNHS Grampian should fund the Ms D'scomplainant's sister's care home fees (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make to the Board.