North East Scotland

Overview

The complaint was in connection with a planning application made in 2002.  This was granted in 2005.  The complainant (Mrs C) was unhappy with the delay, Aberdeenshire Council (the Council)'s response to her complaints and she felt the application had been dealt with less favourably than a subsequent application by new owners of part of the land.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) that planning permission was only granted in 2005 for an application made in 2002 (upheld); and
• (b) the Council's handling of the complaint about this (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) clarify to all planning staff that it is not appropriate to authorise planning permission on any other grounds than that of planning merits;
• (ii) audit their policy and procedures for maintaining planning records and implement any changes they identify as necessary as a result of this; and
• (iii) apologise to Mrs C for their initial response to her complaint and confirm with staff their procedures for ensuring complaints are swiftly dealt with and progressed.

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

Overview

On 12 April 2005 the Ombudsman received a complaint from Mr C and his sister (Ms C) that Argyll and Clyde NHS Board (the Board) failed to provide their father (Mr A) with adequate clinical care and treatment at the Accident and Emergency Department (A&E) at the Inverclyde Royal Hospital (the Hospital) during his admission following a fall on 29 April 2004.  It should be noted that on 1 April 2006, Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board took over responsibility for the Hospital.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Board failed to provide adequate clinical care and treatment to Mr A within the A&E Department (not upheld);
• (b) the Board failed to provide adequate nursing care to Mr A within the A&E Department (upheld);
• (c) the nursing notes were not adequate (upheld); and
• (d) the Board failed to handle Mr and Ms C's complaints adequately (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i) perform a full audit of A&E nursing records in the next three months and provide the Ombudsman's office with the results of this audit;
• (ii) take further action to ensure that the failings in the nursing documentation and communication my investigation identified are addressed, and that the Board provide the Ombudsman's office with details of who will take responsibility for this, and what action will be taken;
• (iii) provide evidence of educational programmes and systems of competency- based measurement for A&E nursing staff in relation to triage performance, record-keeping, nursing assessment, care planning and discharge planning;
• (iv) review their complaints handling; and
• (v) write to Mr and Ms C to apologise for the Board's failure to address their concerns satisfactorily.

The Board have accepted my recommendations and are already acting on them.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C), supported by her family,  raised a number of concerns about specific elements of the care and treatment of her mother (Mrs A) in two NHS hospital settings and the overall care provided by an Independent Care Home where she was a fully-funded NHS Continuing Care Patient.  The complainant also questioned the oversight of the care provided in the Care Home by the NHS staff responsible for her mother.  The complainant was dissatisfied with the quality of the Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board (the Board) investigation into her complaint and the number of bodies she had to raise a complaint with in order to address all her concerns.

Specific complaints investigated and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Board:

• (a) failed in their care and treatment of Mrs A (partially upheld);
• (b) failed in their duty of care to Mrs A while she was in the Care Home (partially upheld); and
• (c) failed to adequately investigate Mrs C's complaint (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i) use this case to learn lessons about the use of observations and comments made by relatives in decisions about case management and treatment plans;
• (ii) ensure that procedures are in place to inform relatives about how to make contact with medical staff; and
• (iii) consider adopting a policy of informing the family of continuing care patients of the current system of proactive clinical review and invite their input as appropriate. The policy should also indicate how families can contact the appropriate clinician in-between periodic reviews.

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

Overview

A man (Mr C) complained that the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care (the Care Commission) did not adequately investigate his concerns that  his mother (Mrs A) had money stolen from her while she was resident in a care home (the Home).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Care Commission did not consider Mr C's evidence and believed everything staff at the Home said to them without investigation (Ppartially Uupheld); and
• (b) the Care Commission did not make proper enquiries, in particular, that they did not seek relevant information from the Police, the lawyer who holds Mrs A's power of attorney and Mrs A (Nnot Uupheld).

 Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Care Commission ensure both sides in a complaint receive the same information about their findings and that it be clarified in training and guidance that any decision letter must fully reflect the investigation undertaken and communicate this clearly to the complainant.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) was concerned that the failure of the Southern General Hospital in Glasgow (Hospital 1) to diagnose a trapped nerve in his neck caused him pain and stress that could have been avoided.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Hospital 1 failed to diagnose a trapped nerve in Mr C's neck when he attended Hospital 1 in February 2002 and March 2003 (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendation to make.

Overview

The complainant raised concerns on behalf of his 72-year-old mother about her discharge from hospital and her condition at discharge, which he felt was worse than when she was admitted.  She died at home a few days later.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is the decision to discharge (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendation.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the time taken and number of appointments needed by the Tayside Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Service to fit a replacement socket to his below the knee prosthesis.  The complainant also raised a concern that NHS Tayside Board (the Board) had failed to pay his associated travel expenses.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Board unreasonably:

• (a)  delayed providing Mr C with an artificial limb (not upheld); and
• (b)  refused travelling expenses to Mr C (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complaint relates to the installation of a fire wall by Dundee City Council (the Council) in a property which is partly owned by the complainant (Mr C).  Mr C was aggrieved that the Council had not obtained his consent prior to installing this fire wall.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)      the Council instructed works to install a fire division wall without Mr C's consent as owner (upheld);
• (b)      the Council failed to respond to Mr C's correspondence asking them to explain the legal basis for installing the fire division wall (partially upheld); and
• (c)      the Council wrongly awarded grant aid to other owners (no finding).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council apologise to Mr C for the failings identified in the report.  The Council have accepted the recommendation.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the treatment his wife (Mrs C) received at the Western Infirmary, Glasgow in January 2005 including the failure of staff to take a wound swab and that his complaint was not dealt with through proper channels.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)    Mrs C was given inappropriate care and treatment (upheld); and
• (b)      the Board's complaints handling was inadequate (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i)       monitors compliance of the amended handover procedure to ensure that staff read patient documentation in addition to receiving a verbal report;
• (ii)      review their guidance on discharge procedures to ensure that planned care has been provided prior to discharge; and
• (iii)      reminds staff when receiving letters direct from patients to clarify and record whether they are making an enquiry or a formal complaint.

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

Overview

The complainant raised a number of concerns that, following his stroke, a hospital did not assess his vision properly, did not carry out a carotid artery scan properly, did not communicate adequately with him and did not arrange his further care at a more local location.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a)      assessment of vision (upheld);
• (b)      carotid artery scan (not upheld);
• (c)      communication (not upheld); and
• (d)      rehabilitation location (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends to the Board that patients with neurological conditions, when initially assessed, should receive a full neurological examination, including the bedside assessment of visual fields.  If investigations point to a specific area of brain damage, the medical team should ensure that the appropriate clinical examination has been performed.  She also recommends that the Board apologise in respect of complaint (a).