Mid Scotland and Fife

Overview

The complaint concerned the actions of two district nurses at a home visit.  The complaint was that the nurses failed to adequately assess the patient or arrange for a hospital admission.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that there was failure to adequately assess Mrs C’s medical condition or admit her to hospital (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Division ensures that the two district nurses receive training in the appropriate actions to be taken in such cases and in the importance of record keeping as identified by the Adviser.  Such record keeping is not only important in itself but is crucial to the delivery of appropriate care.  They should be given the opportunity to reflect on the lessons to be learned from this case with a clinical supervisor and specifically to consider when to seek medical advice in the future.

The Division have accepted the recommendation in full.

Overview

The complaint concerned the actions of a GP at a home visit.  The complaint was that the GP failed to carry out an adequate examination of the patient or arrange for her to be admitted to hospital.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is about the failure of GP 1 to carry out an appropriate examination or admit Mrs C to hospital (no finding).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendation to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns:  that her grandfather's (Mr A) flat was in an unfit condition; that he was being denied access to communal ground; and that her complaints on this matter had not been dealt with appropriately.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Mr A's house was not maintained adequately (not upheld);
• (b) Mr A was denied access to communal ground (not upheld); and
• (c) Mrs C's complaints were not handled appropriately (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council emphasise, in guidance issued to Council staff, that complainants should be reminded of their rights to take their complaint further in any formal response from East Dunbartonshire Council.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) complained that North Lanarkshire Council (the Council) acted unreasonably in that they agreed to sell him a piece of land and then subsequently withdrew it from sale.  Mr C also complained about the way the Council dealt with his complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council agreed to sell a piece of land to Mr C but subsequently refused to do so (not upheld); and
• (b) the Council acted unreasonably when Mr C complained (not upheld).

Redress and Recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

The complainant (Mr C) complained that his GP failed to diagnose and treat him appropriately.

Overview

The complainant is the Chairman of the Tenants' and Residents' Association of a multi-storey building and made his complaint on their behalf.  They were unhappy about North Lanarkshire Council's handling of the internal communication system to the concierge station.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints from Mr C which I have investigated are that:

• (a)  the Council failed to repair the internal communication system to the concierge station (not upheld);
• (b)  the Council failed to repair the internal door entry system (not upheld); and
• (c)  the Council failed to ensure the provision of a proper communication system for the lifts in the event of breakdown (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendation to make.

Overview

The complaint concerned the way in which a planning application was handled.  In particular, there was an allegation that the Inquiry Reporter misdirected himself.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Inquiry Reporter misdirected himself and refused the appeal on grounds that did not pertain to the application made (not upheld).

Redress and Recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complaint concerned the Reporter's handling of a planning appeal against the refusal of planning permission by Perth and Kinross Council (the Council) for the change of use from an established traveller pitch to form three permanent traveller pitches near the village in which Mr C lives (referred to as village X).  Mr C contended that the Reporter failed to deal with the appeal in accordance with the proper procedure and that, as a consequence of the flawed decision to uphold the appeal and grant planning permission, the development would have an adverse effect on his property.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the Reporter failed to consider properly the planning history of the use of site (not upheld);
• (b)  the Reporter failed to gather and consider properly all relevant planning factors before deciding the appeal (not upheld); and
• (c)  the Reporter failed to consider properly issues relating to amenity and road safety (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant considered that his dentist's poor care and treatment caused some of his teeth to disintegrate and others to need extraction and that the dentist provided a poorly fitting denture.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the complainant's poor dental state had been caused by the dentist's actions (not upheld); and
• (b)  the dentist provided a denture that fitted poorly (not upheld).

Redress and Recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendation to make.

Overview

The complainant raised concerns about a consultant surgeon's decision not to perform the operation which he had intended to do and about staff attitudes.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  a surgeon cancelled an operation without proper cause (not upheld);
• (b)  a hospital nurse's attitude at admission and discharge was inappropriate (no finding);
• (c)  the Board's two replies to the complaint were insulting and inadequate (not upheld);
• (d)  the surgeon's lack of record keeping about his decision to cancel the operation was inappropriate (upheld); and
• (e)  some of the hospital's communication procedures were inadequate (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that:

• (i)  the surgeon review his record keeping in line with General Medical Council guidance; and
• (ii)  the Board improve communication to staff in the hospital's Admission and Discharge Lounge.

The Board have accepted the recommendations and have taken steps to action them.