South of Scotland

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) complained about the transport arrangements for his wife (Mrs C) after her feeding tube blocked and she required hospital treatment to unblock it. He also complained about the care and treatment she received at Gilbert Bain Hospital, Shetland (Hospital 1).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) there was a delay in the arrival of the ambulance and when it arrived it could not take Mrs C in a powered wheelchair (upheld to the extent that the ambulance could have been dispatched more quickly and the delay avoided had the crew been advised when the request for the ambulance arrived);
• (b) no arrangements were made to take Mrs C home after her attendance at Accident and Emergency at Hospital 1 (upheld);
• (c) Mrs C had no nutrition or fluids for 20 hours (upheld);
• (d) Mrs C was sent to the wrong address in a taxi (upheld); and
• (e) the initial travel arrangements made for Mrs C to attend a hospital outwith the Shetland NHS Board area were unreasonable (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Scottish Ambulance Service:

• (i) apologise to Mr C for the failings identified in this paragraphs 5 to 12 of this report; and
• (ii) demonstrate that, through providing more tailored options for requesting physicians, the response and appropriateness of that response has improved.

The Ombudsman recommends that Shetland NHS Board:

• (iii) apologise to Mr C for the failings identified in paragraphs 18 to 29 of this report;
• (iv) send him a copy of the results of the audit of record keeping in the Accident and Emergency department and any action taken to improve practice; and
• (v) audit the Patient Travel Service to ensure that they are now requesting sufficient information to allow them to make appropriate arrangements for all patients in the Board area who require to travel.

Both the Scottish Ambulance Service and Shetland NHS Board have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns that Dumfries and Galloway Council (the Council) failed to arrange the provision of appropriate housing to meet the needs of Mr C and his family from September 2004 to date (the needs arising as a result of Mr C being disabled in a traffic accident in September 2004).

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to undertake the appropriate assessments, identify the family’s needs and provide for the necessary housing adaptations in a timely manner (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) introduce a detailed assessment framework for identifying the needs of each individual entitled to be so assessed and what adaptations might be required to meet those needs. This assessment should include input from all professionals involved including (but not limited to) Occupational Therapists, Social Workers and Health Professionals;
• (ii) review the current policy with respect to Private Sector Housing Improvement Grants and ensure that the policy is clear as to its limitations (both of funding and which needs will be met) and what adaptations might constitute an exception to the usual limit. Action should also be taken to ensure that relevant staff are fully aware of this policy, these limits and exceptions;
• (iii) introduce a procedure for dealing with adaptation cases where no agreement can be reached;
• (iv) as a matter of urgency produce a statement of needs for Mr C and his family, the adaptations needed to meet these needs and a plan for how these adaptations might be achieved; and
• (v) in recognition of the avoidable delays which have occurred in meeting Mr C's long term needs and the distress caused by this, make a payment to Mr C of £5,000.

The Council have already accepted the recommendations and have already enacted recommendation (iv) and is the process of taking action that will achieve (iii).

Overview

The complainants, Mr and Mrs C, complained on behalf of their late son (Mr A) that the Social Work Department of Scottish Borders Council (the Council) had failed to provide him with an appropriate level of support. They pursued this through the Council's complaint procedure and made oral submissions to a Complaints Review Committee (the CRC). The CRC did not uphold their complaint and Mr and Mrs C complained about the CRC's handling of this matter.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the handling of Mr and Mrs C's complaint by the CRC was inadequate (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

Although the complaint is not upheld, the Ombudsman recommends that the Council apologise to Mr and Mrs C for the distress caused by the concerns raised by the CRC about the adequacy of the information provided to them prior to the CRC hearing.

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

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised concerns about The Moray Council (the Council)'s handling of her request for direct payments to enable her to purchase help with domestic tasks in her home.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that there was:

• (a) failure by the support organisation representing the Council (the Organisation) to provide accurate information to Ms C about her application for direct payments (partially upheld, to the extent that there was a failure to refer Ms C back to the Council for appropriate advice);
• (b) a delay in processing Ms C’s application (upheld); and
• (c) failure to conduct a proper investigation into Ms C's complaint against the Organisation (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) have regard to the failures identified in this report when they undertake their planned review of their direct payments procedure;
• (ii) give appropriate support and assistance to Ms C to help her decide what help she needs to receive in her home and maintain this after implementation of any service offered by the Council;
• (iii) make a payment of £750 to Ms C in recognition of service failure and an additional sum of £250 for time and trouble; and
• (iv) as a matter of priority, take steps to implement a complaint process which is open, capable of proper audit and accessible by service users.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised concerns about her husband's care and treatment at Dunoon General Hospital (Hospital 1) on 14 June 2006. She complained that medical staff did not consider a diagnosis of acute meningitis when they were considering her husband's diagnosis, and that his transfer to Inverclyde Royal Hospital (Hospital 2) was delayed. Following the decision to transfer her husband (Mr C), he became very unwell and, sadly, he died in Hospital 1 on 14 June 2006.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that: (a) an alternative diagnosis of acute meningitis was not considered when a diagnosis of stroke was given to the family on Wednesday 14 June 2006 (not upheld); and (b) there was a delay by Hospital 1 in arranging Mr C's transfer to Hospital 2 on 14 June 2006 (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

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

• (i) ensure that the local redesign process currently being undertaken between the Board and the Scottish Ambulance Service covers the need for medical staff to have access to the most up-to-date details of inter-hospital transfer times and with all the relevant transportation matters clearly established at the time (of arranging the transfer); and
• (ii) review their acute unit transfers policy to take account of changing patterns of acute stroke management.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the treatment which his wife (Mrs C), who was suspected of having multiple sclerosis (MS), received from a consultant neurologist (Consultant 1) at Western Isles Hospital (the Hospital) between October 2006 and February 2007.  Mr C also complained about the behaviour of Consultant 1 and the Western Isles NHS Board (the Board)'s handling of the complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) between 18 October 2006 and 21 February 2007 Consultant 1 provided Mrs C with an inadequate level of treatment (not upheld);
• (b) Consultant 1 behaved inappropriately when he learned that Mrs C had made a complaint against him (upheld); and
• (c) the Board's handling of the complaint was unsatisfactory (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that:

• (i) Consultant 1 apologise to Mrs C for the comments he made about her in  his letter to the GP dated 22 August 2007; and that the Board:
• (ii) ensure that this report is shared with Consultant 1's appraiser and is discussed at Consultant 1's next annual appraisal;
•  (iii) carry out an audit to ensure that complaints are being dealt with in accordance with the timescales as stated in the NHS complaints procedure;
• (iv) remind staff who deal with complaints or are subject to complaints of their obligations to act in accordance with the guidance as stated in the NHS complaints procedure; and
• (v) apologise to Mr and Mrs C for the failings which have been identified in this report.

The Board have accepted recommendations (ii) to (v) and will act on them accordingly.  As at the date of issue of this report Consultant 1 has not accepted recommendation (i).

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, raised a number of concerns about a decision by North Ayrshire Council (the Council) to remove warden provision from sheltered housing.  He said there had been a failure to consult with tenants and that the information available to Councillors when the decision was made was inadequate.  He also complained about the process of implementation; the transition provisions; and communication generally, including the Council's response to complaints raised.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council did not consult with tenants prior to the decision (upheld, to the extent that the decision not to consult was made without legal advice which would have been required to make it soundly based);
• (b) information provided to Councillors, prior to the decision, was inadequate (not upheld);
• (c) there was insufficient planning for the process of implementation and transition provisions (upheld); and
• (d) communication throughout was inadequate (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) review their procedures for ensuring appropriate legal advice is obtained and recorded prior to significant decisions;
• (ii) use the implementation of this decision as a case study, to ensure appropriate planning is in place for future service changes;
• (iii) ensure that, for future service changes, adequate and appropriate communication planning is undertaken and monitored; and
• (iv) review the information currently provided to tenants about the new system and ensure that systems are in place to allow tenants to communicate with the Council simply and effectively.

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

Overview

Ms C's complaint resulted from the concern she raised that her elderly aunt (Ms A) had been incorrectly charged for Homecare Services for the preparation of meals by Scottish Borders Council (the Council).  Ms C's concern was addressed by the Council, however, Ms C alleged that the Council dealt inadequately with her complaint about the handling of her concerns.

Specific complaints and conclusion

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to guide Ms C through the Council's complaint's process or respond adequately to her complaint regarding the Homecare charges levied against her late aunt (not upheld);
• (b) postponed and delayed the Complaints Review Committee Hearing (the Hearing), which extended over the time period allowed for the Hearing to sit and report (upheld); and
• (c) delayed in forwarding a copy of the Hearing Report to Ms C (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council apologise to Ms C for the delay to the Hearing taking place, and for the delay in forwarding her a copy of the Hearing Report.

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

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) raised a number of concerns regarding the way they were treated by The Moray Council (the Council) as foster carers when a child who had been in their long term care was removed from their care and returned to her biological parents.

Specific complaints and conclusions

• (a) failed when handling the complaint (not upheld); and
• (b) mishandled what Mr and Mrs C described as their de-registering as foster carers (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council reflect on their handling of this complaint with a view to giving further consideration in future to signposting individuals to the Complaints Procedure to express their dissatisfaction with a Council service.

The Council have agreed to the recommendation and have already revised their procedure for handling social work complaints, have produced a dedicated statutory guide and a leaflet for the public and are rolling out training for staff.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) was aggrieved at the decision of Argyll and Bute Council (the Council) to grant planning consent for the demolition of an adjacent modern villa to allow for the development of land to the rear of his home for residential development.  His complaint was restricted, however, to the Council's failure to take enforcement action in respect of breaches of development control.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council delayed unreasonably in taking action to enforce two conditions of a planning consent issued for the adjacent residential development (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.