West of Scotland

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about the way in which his resubmitted dissertation was assessed by the University of Edinburgh (the University). He also complained that the University had not updated their records with his up-to-date address.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the University failed to independently mark Mr C's resubmitted dissertation (not upheld);
• (b) Mr C had previously made a complaint against one of the examiners who marked his dissertation (not upheld); and
• (c) the University failed to timeously update their records of Mr C's address (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the University:

• (i) ensure that the Appeals Sub-Committee use clear language in their reports;
• (ii) consider whether it would be appropriate to clarify in the Code of Practice for Taught Postgraduate Programmes that dissertations resubmitted after minor changes will not be independently marked; and
• (iii) apologise to Mr C for their failure to timeously update all of their records of his address when he informed them of his change of address.

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

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, submitted a complaint about a report (the Report) issued by the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland (PCCS) concerning matters he raised with them.  He said that, although he pointed to a number of inaccuracies in the Report, they were not amended.  He further said that the Report included favourable comments about police involvement and that when it was published, despite it being anonymised, he was easily identifiable.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the PCCS did not amend inaccuracies in the Report which were brought to their attention by Mr C (not upheld);
• (b) the Report should not have included favourable comments about the police (not upheld); and
• (c) Mr C was easily identifiable from the Report (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that, notwithstanding that it is ultimately for the PCCS to determine their own internal procedures, the PCCS reconsider their decision not to issue draft reports, in order to allow any possible errors of fact to be amended prior to the publication of a final report.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) attended the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh (Hospital 1) for spinal surgery.  Complications of surgery left him with nerve damage and restricted mobility.  Mr C complained that staff of Lothian NHS Board (the Board) carried out his surgical procedure incorrectly and that hygiene standards and staff attitudes were poor during his stay at Hospital 1.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Board failed to perform Mr C's spinal surgery correctly (upheld);
• (b) hygiene standards at Hospital 1 were poor (upheld); and
• (c) the Board's staff acted unprofessionally when dealing with Mr C (no finding)

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i) introduce a policy of carrying out appropriate diagnostic scans prior to any exploratory surgery;
• (ii) formally apologise to Mr C; and
• (iii) remind all ward staff of the procedure to be followed in the event of a linen shortage.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about the care and treatment of her 64-year-old husband (Mr C) on Ward 58, a high dependency unit in the Western General Hospital (the Hospital), Edinburgh.  He had been transferred there on 1 August 2006 after several weeks on other wards in the Hospital and had a cardiac arrest there on 5 August 2006.  Sadly, he died later that day in an intensive care unit of the Hospital.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Mr C’s care and treatment from 1 to 5 August 2006 on Ward 58 were below a reasonable standard (upheld); and
• (b) Lothian NHS Board (the Board)’s complaint handling time was not in accordance with the NHS Complaints Procedure (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board put in place rigorous measures to address each of the five shortcomings arising from the leaking central line.

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

Overview

The complainant, Mrs C, raised a number of concerns about the care and treatment which her late mother, Mrs A, received at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh (the Hospital) in August 2007.  Mrs C complained that there were delays in carrying out a CT scan and for Mrs A to be seen by a dietician.  She also complained that there were communication problems with the staff.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) there was a delay in carrying out a CT scan following Mrs A’s admission to the Hospital (upheld);
• (b) it was inappropriate for staff to assume Mrs A was suffering from bowel cancer and this compromised her treatment plan (not upheld);
• (c) there was a delay in Mrs A being seen by a dietician and to ensure she received an adequate level of nutrition (upheld); and
• (d) the level of communication with Mrs A’s family was inadequate (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

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

• (i) give consideration to whether communication links between clinical and radiology staff require review in view of the findings in this report;
• (ii) conduct a review of the current procedures for requesting a CT scan at the weekend, to ensure that patient care is not compromised, should the status of the request be downgraded;
• (iii) conduct an audit of the clinical and nursing records in the ward, to ensure that they are completed in accordance with the guidance issued by the regulatory bodies such as the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council;
• (iv) reflect on Adviser 1’s comments about the lack of urgency in the clinical investigation and consider whether the degree of patient orientation or clinical leadership at ward level is appropriate;
• (v) review their policies for nutritional assessments and dietetic referrals and consider whether nursing staff would benefit from the implementation of a robust education programme related to meeting the nutritional needs of older people in hospital, with clear links to Food, Fluid and Nutritional Care Standards (NHS Quality Improvement, Scotland NHS Scotland September 2003);
• (vi) should provide evidence of clinical benchmarking of ‘Communication’, which is clearly linked to Standard 8 Clinical standards for older people in acute care (Clinical Standards Board for Scotland October 2002), to ensure that this aspect of practice is audited and there is demonstrable evidence of improvement in this aspect of care delivery; and
• (vii) issue Mrs C an apology for the failings which have been identified in this report.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) complained that she had completed and returned an application form for an Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA) for her son (Mr C) for the academic year 2005/06 but that Renfrewshire Council (the Council) refused the application.  The Council did not consider the application on the grounds that it was submitted after the closing date for applications.  Mrs C complained that it was submitted prior to the closing date but that the Council then asked for additional information, not asked for on the original application form and then failed to inform Mrs C of the deadline date to return this information to them.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the closing date for applications to be received by the Council was not included on the application form (upheld);
• (b) Mrs C was not subsequently informed, in her dealings with the Council, of the deadline for submitting the application (upheld);
• (c) Mrs C submitted all the information initially requested but was then asked for additional information (upheld); and
• (d) the Council should have awarded Mr C an EMA for the academic year 2005/06 (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council increase their offer of a £500 ex-gratia payment to £840, to reflect the basic allowance and bonus payment Mr C would have been entitled to had his application been accepted.  The Ombudsman asks that the Council notify her when the recommendation has been implemented.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns regarding enforcement action which was taken against him by Renfrewshire Council (the Council).  This action related to the unauthorised retail use of his premises on an Industrial Estate within the Council’s area (the Estate).  Mr C did not believe this action to be consistent with the treatment of other businesses carrying out similar retail activity on the Estate.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that, in taking enforcement action against Mr C, the Council treated him unfairly when compared with their treatment of other businesses on the Estate (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) claimed that the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) had not properly investigated his complaint regarding the circumstances in which he was asked to leave Bed and Breakfast accommodation.  Specifically, he considered that the Council's investigation had been ineffective in the taking of witness statements.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the way in which the Council investigated Mr C's complaint was ineffective (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) issue Mr C with a full formal apology for the failures identified in this report; and
• (ii) review the handling of this case; and inform her of the action taken to ensure that a similar failing does not reoccur.

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

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) raised concerns on behalf of their son (Mr A) about the decision by the Scottish Ambulance Service (the Service) not to send an ambulance for their son and the way the Service handled their complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Service's decision not to send an ambulance jeopardised Mr A's safety (upheld); and
• (a) the Service mishandled the complaint (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Service:

• (i) acknowledges to Mr and Mrs C that the wrong decision had been made and apologises for the distress the decision had caused;
• (ii) writes to her outlining the steps it has taken to implement the new guidance so that the assurances can be given to the Ombudsman that the relevant Service personnel, local authorities and organisers of private hire events are clear on the Service’s role; and
• (iii) apologises to Mr and Mrs C for its handling of the complaint.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) was concerned that The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) had not dealt satisfactorily with his enquiries and complaints about the use of a piece of land opposite his garage.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council did not deal appropriately, or adequately, with Mr C's enquiries and complaints regarding the use of Council land opposite his garage (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) review their procedures and practice on the investigation of complaints of abandoned vehicles to ensure that any claims that vehicles have been parked with permission are appropriately verified; and
• (ii) apologise to Mr C for the maladministration he has been subject to.

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