Mid Scotland and Fife

Overview

Mrs C complained to The Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care (the Care Commission) about child care services she had received during her daughter's stay at a nursery (the Nursery).  The Care Commission carried out an investigation and a follow-up inspection programme, as a result of her complaint, which Mrs C has considered was inadequate.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Care Commission failed to ensure that a recommendation and requirements from the investigation and inspection reports were implemented by the Nursery (not upheld); and
• (b) the Care Commission failed to address the issues raised by Mrs C in her letter of 13 August 2006 (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns regarding the handling of a planning application by South Lanarkshire Council (the Council).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the letter of 11 July 2005 resulted in unnecessary delay affecting the progression of the application (not upheld);
• (b) the terms of the letter dated 11 July 2005 which was issued to Mr C's client were inaccurate (upheld);
• (c) the Council failed to register the application which resulted in an unnecessary two-month delay (not upheld); and
• (d) the Council failed to issue a letter requesting an extension for dealing with the application as required by statute (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council apologise to Mr C for issuing an inaccurate and misleading letter.

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

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised concerns on behalf of her sister (Ms A) regarding kitchen unit replacement and electrical rewiring work instructed by North Lanarkshire Council (the Council) to Ms A’s tenancy.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council failed to respond appropriately to representations made about unnecessary disruption to the decoration in Ms A’s home (not upheld); and
• (b) the Council’s award of an allowance to Ms A to make good the extensively disrupted decoration in her home was inadequate (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

Given that the Council formulated their policy on decoration/disturbance allowances some 11 years ago when they brought together the policies of the three predecessor housing authorities, the Ombudsman recommended that the Council give consideration as to whether a review of that policy should be undertaken.

The Council accepted the recommendation and stated that they intend to review decoration/disturbance allowances and to report to a future meeting of the appropriate committee.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised concerns that her brother (Mr A) was unable to walk without aids after his discharge from Hairmyres Hospital (the Hospital) and that this had not been detected prior to his discharge.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Mr A’s mobility was not adequately assessed prior to his discharge from the Hospital (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that Lanarkshire NHS Board (the Board) remind relevant staff of the need to take measures to prevent foot drop and to record all relevant information in patients’ clinical records.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns regarding his removal from his general practitioner (GP)'s list of patients.  Mr C was unhappy with the circumstances surrounding this removal and he felt that the correct procedures were not followed by his Medical Practice (the Practice).

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Practice did not follow the correct procedures in removing Mr C from their list of patients (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Practice:

• (i) review their removal procedures in line with the guidance and regulations governing the removal of patients from practice lists. Revised procedures could incorporate suggested wording for warning and removal letters, ensuring that patients are quoted relevant timescales and advised of all options available to them; and
• (ii) apologise to Mr C for their failure to follow the correct procedure in removing him from their list.

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

Overview

The complainant (Miss C) raised a number of concerns about the care and treatment her mother (Mrs A) received in Stirling Royal Infirmary (the Hospital) between her admission on 7 May 2006 and her death on 28 May 2006.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Mrs A's care and treatment while a patient in the Hospital in May 2006 was inadequate (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that Forth Valley NHS Board (the Board):

• (i) apologise to Miss C for the failures identified in this report;
• (ii) remind all their doctors of the importance of appropriate recording of working and differential diagnosis; and
• (iii) ensure that two of the consultant surgeons (identified in this report as Consultant 1 and Consultant 2) reflect on these events at their next annual review.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns regarding Angus Council (the Council)'s handling of a complaint which he raised with them regarding their selection process for a vacant post within the Council.  He believed that it was inappropriate for the Chief Executive to have handled the complaint, given his involvement in the said selection process.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Chief Executive should not have investigated Mr C's complaint to the Council due to his involvement with the selection process, which was the subject of the said complaint (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) remind their staff to act with caution where any conflict of interest could be reasonably perceived to exist; and
• (ii) introduce a procedure for complaints against the Chief Executive. This could also be utilised where the Chief Executive is unable to investigate a complaint due to a conflict of interest, thus ensuring complainants have the right to an investigation by a party not previously involved in the process.

The Council 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 that her husband had received before his death in Bo'ness Hospital on 30 March 2006.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Mrs C was not allowed to visit her husband, because of an outbreak of the winter vomiting virus in his ward in the days leading up to his death in Bo'ness Hospital in March 2006 (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) had a lump on his lower left leg removed in 1998 at Stonehouse Hospital (Hospital 1).  This was diagnosed at the time as a benign fibromatosis.  Some years later, Mr C became aware of a second lump close to the site of the first and he consulted his GP, on 12 July 2004.  Mr C was referred by his GP to Hairmyres Hospital (Hospital 2).[1]  The referral letter referred to the lump as a recurrence of a 'ganglion' which had been removed in 1998.  Following removal of the second lump in May 2005 at Hospital 2, Mr C was diagnosed as having a rare form of cancer and referred for further treatment to a specialist group at the Beatson Centre in Glasgow (the Centre).[2]  Mr C complained to the Ombudsman about the GP's diagnosis in the referral letter.  In the course of the Ombudsman's investigation, samples from the lump removed in 1998 were re-examined and also found to be cancerous.  Concerns were raised that this had not been diagnosed by Hospital 1 in 1998 and also about the treatment Mr C had received in 2004/2005 from Hospital 2 and in 2005 from the Centre.  As a result, the investigation was widened to include these aspects of his care.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) a GP unreasonably misdiagnosed a lump on Mr C's leg as a ganglion (not upheld);
• (b) the care and treatment provided by Hospital 1 and Hospital 2 was inadequate (not upheld); and
• (c) the care and treatment provided by the Centre was inadequate (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that:

• (i) the Practice feed back to clinical staff the adviser's comments in connection with note keeping and referral letters;
• (ii) this report be shared with the clinical staff involved in Mr C's care and treatment by Lanarkshire NHS Board to consider whether the learning identified could be shared more widely; and
• (iii) Lanarkshire NHS Board consider whether the procedures in place are adequate to ensure that the outcomes of tests are appropriately communicated to GP Practices.

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

The Ombudsman has no recommendations in respect of Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board. 

[1]Lanarkshire NHS Board are responsible for Hospital 1 and Hospital 2.

[2] Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board are responsible for the Centre.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) had a lump on his lower left leg removed in 1998 at Stonehouse Hospital (Hospital 1).  This was diagnosed at the time as a benign fibromatosis.  Some years later, Mr C became aware of a second lump close to the site of the first and he consulted his GP, on 12 July 2004.  Mr C was referred by his GP to Hairmyres Hospital (Hospital 2).[1]  The referral letter referred to the lump as a recurrence of a 'ganglion' which had been removed in 1998.  Following removal of the second lump in May 2005 at Hospital 2, Mr C was diagnosed as having a rare form of cancer and referred for further treatment to a specialist group at the Beatson Centre in Glasgow (the Centre).[2]  Mr C complained to the Ombudsman about the GP's diagnosis in the referral letter.  In the course of the Ombudsman's investigation, samples from the lump removed in 1998 were re-examined and also found to be cancerous.  Concerns were raised that this had not been diagnosed by Hospital 1 in 1998 and also about the treatment Mr C had received in 2004/2005 from Hospital 2 and in 2005 from the Centre.  As a result, the investigation was widened to include these aspects of his care.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) a GP unreasonably misdiagnosed a lump on Mr C's leg as a ganglion (not upheld);
• (b) the care and treatment provided by Hospital 1 and Hospital 2 was inadequate (not upheld); and
• (c) the care and treatment provided by the Centre was inadequate (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that:

• (i) the Practice feed back to clinical staff the adviser's comments in connection with note keeping and referral letters;
• (ii) this report be shared with the clinical staff involved in Mr C's care and treatment by Lanarkshire NHS Board to consider whether the learning identified could be shared more widely; and
• (iii) Lanarkshire NHS Board consider whether the procedures in place are adequate to ensure that the outcomes of tests are appropriately communicated to GP Practices.

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

The Ombudsman has no recommendations in respect of Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board. 

[1]Lanarkshire NHS Board are responsible for Hospital 1 and Hospital 2.

[2] Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board are responsible for the Centre.