South of Scotland

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about the nursing care her late mother, Mrs A, received at Ayr Hospital and Biggart Hospital between October 2004 and February 2005 regarding pressure sores (heel) her mother developed.  She also complained that staff failed to keep the family informed of Mrs A's condition.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the management of Mrs A's pressure sores was inadequate (upheld); and
• (b) staff communication with Mrs A's family was poor (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i) provide evidence that the implementation of improvements in the prevention of pressure ulcers has resulted in an increase in standards. This should include: information relating to the monitoring of standards of pressure ulcer prevention; the role of the senior nursing and specialist nursing staff in the monitoring process; and details of the provision of training and support for staff in making decisions about choices of pressure-relieving equipment and appropriate dressing materials; and
• (ii) provide evidence to demonstrate that changes in communication strategies for carers had resulted in improved care.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) was dissatisfied with The Moray Council (the Council)'s handling of his complaints relating to a planning consent for his holiday park and their actions in serving an enforcement notice for breach of a condition of that consent.  He alleged that there was delay (in excess of three months) in responding to his representations and that they failed to reply fully to the seven points of complaint he had raised.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) delayed in responding to his representations (upheld); and
• (b) failed to reply fully to his representations (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) review their enforcement procedures and produce guidelines which can be audited; and
• (ii) take steps to meet with Mr C to discuss his outstanding concerns.

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

Overview

The complainant, Ms C, raised a number of concerns about what happened to her when she was admitted to Crosshouse Hospital (the Hospital) for diagnostic endoscopy.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Hospital failed to explain Ms C's inappropriate admission adequately (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make; however, she asks that this office be provided with a copy of the guidelines when they are ratified.

Overview

The complainants, Mr and Mrs C, raised a number of concerns about the way in which VisitScotland handled their complaint about the Quality Assurance Scheme.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) inspection visits made to Mr and Mrs C's guest house were not in accordance with VisitScotland's usual procedure in so far as frequency and variation (day/night) were concerned (not upheld);
• (b) the standards that Mr and Mrs C required to achieve to increase their star grading were not specified sufficiently (partially upheld); and
• (c) Mr and Mrs C were not advised, in advance of their December 2006 inspection, that assessment standards had changed (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that, in relation to their current standards, VisitScotland ensure that inspection staff are clear about the standards pertaining to each star rating and that, as far as possible, these standards are specific and measurable.

VisitScotland have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about the way Argyll and Bute Council (the Council) had consulted on a proposed Traffic Order which restricted waiting and loading on the street where he lived.  He complained that the notification of the proposed Traffic Order was insufficiently clear and that this prejudiced his ability to raise objections.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the notification of a proposed Traffic Order was inadequate and this led to a reduced opportunity for Mr C, as an affected resident, to participate in the consultation on the proposals (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologise to Mr C for shortcomings in the notification of the proposed Traffic Order; and
• (ii) undertake a review of the way it notifies proposed Traffic Orders to reflect the concerns raised in this report, giving particular attention to the wording of advertisements and the notification of residents considered likely to be affected by proposed changes.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns that East Lothian Council (the Council) had not responded adequately to the requests of a sporting organisation (the Sporting Organisation) and that, when the Sporting Organisation complained about this, the Council did not respond within the stated timescales.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a)  unreasonably failed to take action to obtain Anti Social Behaviour Orders against named persons (not upheld); and
• (b)  did not respond to the Sporting Organisation within stated timescales (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, complained on behalf of Mr A in connection with matters relating to the Argyll and Bute Local Plan.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the procedure followed by the Council in relation to the PAN 41 hearing on 6 January 2006 was insufficiently transparent to the public (not upheld);
• (b)  the Council failed to acknowledge or respond to a petition submitted in April 2006 and refused to allow it as a late objection (not upheld);
• (c)  during the consultation process relating to the Argyll and Bute Local Plan, the Council failed to communicate effectively with the local community (not upheld); and
• (d)  the Council failed to take the community's wishes into account (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council ensure that the role of the Public Service and Licensing Committee is clarified within the Council.

The Council have accepted the recommendations and have acted on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns regarding the refusal of his application for a repairs grant, to Dumfries and Galloway Council (the Council), after the Council had fully spent their funding for discretional repairs grants.  Mr C stated that the Council had led him to believe that a discretional repairs grant would be awarded, and that the Council had subsequently failed to honour this commitment.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the Council's refusal of Mr C's application for a repairs grant (not upheld); and
• (b)  the Council led Mr C to believe that a repairs grant would be awarded (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) was concerned about various aspects of The Highland Council (the Council)'s Public and Private Partnership School Building Project (PPP2) and decisions made regarding the replacement of Dingwall Academy.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the Council failed to undertake public consultation between 2001 (when the project was first raised as a possibility) and December 2003 (when outline planning approval was subject to public consultation) (not upheld);
• (b)  the Ross and Cromarty Planning Committee (the Planning Committee)'s decision to grant outline planning approval was taken to anchor the PPP2 project and with a view to finding a solution to educational provision for schools throughout the Highlands, rather than being based on site specific and local planning considerations (not upheld);
• (c)  the Council failed to take account of an Electoral Reform Society Ltd managed referendum which took place in February 2005 and which asked the question 'Are you in favour of the new Dingwall Academy being built on the existing playing fields?'  73.5% voted 'No' (not upheld);
• (d)  the process by which the Planning Committee reached its decision was flawed because members of the community who attended the planning meeting of 16 February 2004 did not get the chance to make any representations without having previously submitted written objections (not upheld);
• (e)  the Council failed to ensure that Dingwall Community Council (the Community Council) sought and represented local opinion (not upheld);
• (f)  the Council failed to advise the Chairman of the Community Council to step aside given his alleged conflict of interest (not upheld);
• (g)  the Council failed to consider advice from the Scottish Executive  when they decided to build a new school on a flood plain (not upheld);
• (h)  the Council failed to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) before making their decision to site the school (not upheld);
• (i)  in correspondence with the complainant, the Council failed to clarify who made the decision to site the school on the playing fields or the rationale for making that decision (not upheld);
• (j)  the Council failed to follow their own guidelines by not having a Sustainable Design Statement for the project (not upheld);
• (k)  the Outline Business Case (OBC) that was presented to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee (the ECS Committee) in its consideration of a course of action regarding PPP2 was too short, one-sided, inaccurate and contradictory to allow the ECS Committee to reach a well informed and balanced decision (not upheld); and
• (l)  the Planning Committee's decision to approve the reserved matters application on 11 April 2005 went against the requirement of the Local Plan (the Local Plan) (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised concerns about the nursing care received by her late husband (Mr C) in Lorn and Islands District General Hospital (the Hospital).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  Mr C’s medication for Parkinson’s disease was not correctly administered in relation to his PEG feeding (not upheld);
• (b)  Mr C’s PEG tube was not properly cleaned by nursing staff so as to avoid blockage (no finding);
• (c)  Mr C was not kept satisfactorily hydrated (not upheld);
• (d)  Mr C’s feet were not kept elevated when he was sitting in his chair and this resulted in the formation of blisters on his heels (upheld);
• (e)  Mr C was not given adequate physiotherapy in hospital (not upheld);
• (f)  Mr C was not given access to his own oral suction machine and oral suction was not performed sufficiently frequently by staff (no finding);
• (g)  Mr C’s torso and head were not kept elevated when he was in bed (upheld); and
• (h)  Mr C was wrongly assessed as fit for discharge as he died shortly later (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i)  take steps to ensure that relatives are given appropriate information where treatment given in hospital is different from at home;
• (ii)  apologise to Mrs C for their failure to appropriately manage Mr C’s pressure areas; and
• (iii)  remind relevant staff to be attentive to any physiotherapy advice given on positioning a patient.  Furthermore, the Board should apologise to Mrs C for their failure to return Mr C to an upright position after a positional change.

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