Mid Scotland and Fife

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised concerns about the nursing care which her daughter (Miss C) received at Monklands Hospital (the Hospital) on 12  October  2005 and 13 October 2005 following an admission for a minor operation.  Miss  C is an insulin dependent diabetic and requires to eat meals on a regular basis.  Mrs C felt the staff failed to monitor Miss C's diabetic condition.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that between 12  October  2005 and 13  October  2005 nursing staff failed to adequately monitor Miss C's diabetic condition (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complaint concerns allegations made on behalf of Mr and Mrs C by their MSP (Mr D) that the care received by their daughter (Ms C) from social work staff, prior to her death, was both ineffective and inappropriate.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  Ms C was placed in care contrary to her wishes, and regardless of the fact that she had carers to look after her in her own home (not upheld); and
• (b)  Council officers failed to respond to voice and email messages (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C)'s son (Mr A) has an inherited genetic disease and she believed that his head teacher showed a lack of care and compassion for him and a lack of respect for her as a parent.  Mrs C maintained that she made a number of formal complaints about this but, that North Lanarkshire Council (the Council) failed to respond properly, explore all relevant issues and speak with independent witnesses.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the Council did not properly investigate a complaint against the head teacher and witness statements were not sought (partially upheld);
• (b)  the Council failed to adhere to an undertaking to provide a corrected minute (partially upheld);
• (c)  the Council failed to abide to an agreement concerning home tuition (no finding);
• (d)  the head teacher inappropriately sought information about a private meeting (not upheld);
• (e)  the head teacher failed to enter properly into the spirit of mediation (not upheld); and
• (f)  the Council failed to provide a proper explanation for the reasons why a photograph of her son had been publicly displayed (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council apologise to Mrs C for the fact that an unfavourable minute was issued; for the fact that information on home tuition was not made available earlier; and for the time and trouble she spent trying to establish the circumstances which took place with regard to the photograph.

In addition, the Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)  have in place a published policy on arrangements for home tuition,
• (ii)  always provide clarification of the process required  in the preparation of home tuition work, for instance as was clarified to Mrs C in August 2006; and
• (iii)  review their existing complaints procedure where it concerns head teachers, in order to exclude the possibility of them investigating complaints made against themselves.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the GP Practice (the Practice)'s treatment of him as a separated parent in respect of his son (Mr A)'s prescriptions for his ongoing serious medical condition.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Practice's prescribing and their treatment of Mr C were inappropriate (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised concerns about the nursing care received by her mother (Mrs A).

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that nursing staff failed to adequately supervise and monitor Mrs A's condition (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make but suggests that consideration should be given to when it is appropriate for patients to be shut off from observation.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about the handling of his medical treatment by Hairmyers Hospital (the Hospital), the length of the waiting times the treatment involved and the inclusion of parliamentary complaint correspondence within his medical file.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  before and after Mr C saw a Consultant at the Hospital, the waiting times he had been subjected to were unreasonable (not upheld);
• (b)  Mr C felt that he had not experienced continuity of treatment and his individual personal circumstances were not taken into account (not upheld); and
• (c)  Mr C's confidential information was mis-used and that this may have influenced the attitude of those involved with his subsequent care (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant raised concerns about her dental treatment and the redress she obtained.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the treatment provided was inadequate (upheld); and
• (b)  the compensation was insufficient (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the dentist makes a payment of £3020 to the complainant and undertakes further training.

The dentist has accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) alleged that Perth and Kinross Council (the Council) had delayed in attending to works which their surveyor considered necessary after an inspection at Mr C's home in 2003 and had unreasonably initiated legal proceedings against him.  Mr C complained that they had harassed and discriminated against him.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a)  delayed in attending to works which their surveyor considered necessary after an inspection at his home in 2003 (upheld);
• (b)  unreasonably initiated legal proceedings (upheld); and
• (c)  harassed and discriminated against Mr C (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman is satisfied that the apologies already given by the Council and their offer of £800 in recognition of the time and trouble spent by Mr C in pursuing his complaints provided a suitable remedy to the matter.  However, she recommends that:

• (i)  when implementing repairs, the Council give careful consideration to the effects any disruption may have on those with health problems; and
• (ii)  the Council reviews the channels of communication between the arrears and benefits sections of the Housing and Community Care Department.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about East Ayrshire Council (the Council)'s handling of various planning applications submitted for the erection of a housing development on a site adjacent to his property.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council showed favouritism to the developer throughout their consideration of the various planning applications submitted by the developer (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)  take steps to ensure that the administrative errors which had been identified prior to my involvement in relation to the Council's planning files are addressed to ensure that they do not arise in the future; and
• (ii)  revisit their Scheme of Planning Application Delegation (the mechanism which allows Council Officers discretion to determine applications) to see whether there is a need, in cases such as this, for a referral to committee.

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

Overview

The complaint concerns the care and treatment of the complainant (Mr C)'s late wife (Mrs C) by a doctor (Doctor 1) from an out-of-hours General Practitioner Service (the Service) in December 2002.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Doctor 1 failed to provide Mrs C with adequate care and treatment during a home consultation on 31 December 2002 (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that:

• (i)  Doctor 1 issue Mr C and his family with a full formal apology for the failures identified in this Report; and
• (ii)  the apology should be in accordance with the Ombudsman's guidance note on 'apology' (which sets out what is meant and what is required for a meaningful apology).

Doctor 1 has accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.