North East Scotland

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) complained that the University of Glasgow (the University) did not ensure that a Masters course applied quality assurance measures, or use proper procedures in relation to assessments.  Mr C also complained that the University did not deal with his complaint appropriately.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) defective procedures were used for dealing with assessments within a University Department (the Department), specifically relating to assessments submitted for a Masters course (partially upheld to the extent that the first Course Convener failed to abide by the relevant regulations and, in error, allowed Mr C to proceed to dissertation before he had completed the work for the four modules);
• (b) there was a failure to apply quality assurance procedures to the Masters course (partially upheld to the extent that Department staff acted contrary to regulations in not holding Boards of Examiners for the Masters course); and
• (c) Mr C's complaint was poorly handled by the University (partially upheld to the extent that the Senior Senate Assessor for Student Complaints did not arrange a meeting with Mr C on the conclusion of his review of Mr C’s complaint).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the University

• (i) apologise to Mr C for the administrative error in failing to adhere to the regulations for progression to the dissertation;
• (ii) reflect on the events relating to Mr C’s complaint and ensure that staff adhere to regulations to avoid another situation where a taught postgraduate student is allowed to proceed to dissertation before assignments for modules have been completed and marked;
• (iii) consider the feasibility of recording assessments received from students, to minimise the chances of pieces of work being lost;
• (iv) ensure that students receive clear communication from staff on the deadlines for resubmission of work;
• (v) ensure that courses/programmes adhere to the current Code of Assessment in respect of holding Boards of Examiners.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about Tayside NHS Board (the Board) on behalf of his wife (Mrs C) about the fact that her contact details were not updated in her medical records and that this resulted in mail being sent to the wrong address.  He also raised concerns that the Board failed to respond to his complaint until he contacted them to follow this up.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Board failed to:

• (a) update their records of Mrs C's address and GP practice despite being notified of these on several occasions (upheld); and
• (b) efficiently respond to Mr C's complaint (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Board have already taken steps to remedy the failings identified and the Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) was a post-graduate student at the University of Glasgow (the University).  After her status was upgraded from that of a masters to a doctoral candidate, she was transferred to a different department.  A progress meeting in that department decided that Ms C's work to date was not of sufficient standard to allow her to continue as a doctoral candidate.  She appealed this decision and complained about aspects of the University's administration and supervision during her period of study.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the University accepted a research topic that was not viable (not upheld);
• (b) the University incorrectly upgraded Ms C to status as a PhD student when she did not have the knowledge necessary to complete it (not upheld);
• (c) the supervision of Ms C's PhD was inadequate (upheld to the extent that the University did not apologise for shortcomings they identified);
• (d) review meetings were improperly conducted (not upheld); and
• (e) there were shortcomings in the University's handling of Ms C's complaint (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the University make a formal apology to Ms C for a standard of supervision which fell short of that to which she was entitled.

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about the school transport provision for their daughter (Child A).  They felt that the current transport arrangements were not safe and that they were never told that the school their daughter attends was not the one zoned for her.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Aberdeenshire Council (the Council) failed to take adequate steps to ensure that Mr and Mrs C were aware of which primary school their daughter was zoned to attend nor did they explain the transport implications of this (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council provide free school transport to Child A and her sister, both of whom already attend School 1, until the end of their primary schooling from the pick up/drop off point which would have been agreed had Child A been within the catchment area of School 1.  In addition, the Ombudsman recommends that the Council look favourably on future applications for transport to School 1 for any other siblings of Child A.

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

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, complained about the lack of clinical follow-up for his ear, nose and throat complaint and that a Consultant Surgeon (the Consultant) did not refer him for a further clinical opinion.  He also complained that Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board (the Board) took over three months to respond to his formal complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) no action was taken for seven months to identify the cause of the symptoms of Mr C’s condition (not upheld);
• (b) the Consultant did not refer Mr C to another specialist for an opinion (upheld); and
• (c) the NHS took over three months to respond to the complaint (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i) remind the Consultant of the importance of clear communication with patients, to assist their understanding of any potential diagnosis or otherwise, when symptoms are still present;
• (ii) ensure that staff clearly record the outcome of a clinical decision regarding a second opinion; and
• (iii) review their internal procedure for investigating and resolving complaints and consider ways to improve their response times to complaints.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised concerns about the attitude of an officer (Officer 1) of the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care (the Care Commission) during an inspection of her nursery (the Nursery) and about the way in which her complaint to the Care Commission had been investigated.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Officer 1 spoke to the Nursery staff in an unprofessional way during the inspection (upheld);
• (b) the Care Commission did not carry out an adequate investigation of MrsC's complaint:
• (i) Mrs C's complaint was not initially identified as a complaint (not upheld);
• (ii) the Care Commission did not take into account similar concerns which had been raised about Officer 1 when investigating Mrs C's complaint (partially upheld to the extent that Mrs C was not given an appropriate explanation for why these concerns were not taken into account);
• (iii) the Care Commission did not ask the correct questions of staff who were interviewed (not upheld); and
• (iv) Mrs C's complaint was not passed to the Care Commission Review Committee in accordance with their complaints process (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Care Commission:

• (i) take steps to ensure that all evidence provided by complainants is appropriately considered and that explanations are provided, where appropriate, for why particular evidence cannot be relied upon;
• (ii) remind relevant staff that the internal complaints procedure should be exhausted before referring a complainant to the Ombudsman; and
• (iii) apologise to Mrs C for the failings identified in this report.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) was concerned that the University of Glasgow (the University) inappropriately brought their consideration of his appeal and complaints to a halt and inappropriately expelled him.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the University inappropriately brought their consideration of Mr C's appeal and complaints to a halt and inappropriately expelled him, in breach of paragraph 28.2.1 of the University's Code of Appeals and paragraph 31.2.1 of the University's Complaints Procedure (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) claimed that she had been unfairly removed from her course at the University of Abertay Dundee (the University) and that the University had failed to follow procedures in removing her.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Ms C was unfairly withdrawn from her degree programme at the University and that there were procedural failings leading up to her withdrawal (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

Although the complaint has not been upheld, the Ombudsman recommends, to ensure future continuing improvement, that the University:

• (i) consider that records should be made of meetings with students, especially failing students, who are being counselled on their academic performance and where there is a likelihood that they could be withdrawn;
• (ii) reflect on the wording of the standard resit letter to see if it is as clear as it could be; and
• (iii) consider whether final decision letters at the conclusion of an unsuccessful appeal should give a fuller explanation of why an appeal is not upheld, rather than simply saying there are ‘no grounds’ for an appeal – an explanation of why there are no grounds might be helpful for the appellant.

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

Overview

The complainants raised a number of concerns about the care of their late mother (Mrs A) while she was a patient at Stobhill Hospital, Glasgow and Glasgow Royal Infirmary between January and August 2007.  In particular, they raised concerns about unnecessarily prolonged admission due to acquired infections, quality of food, lack of mental and social therapy, management of hearing aids, communication with family members and information about MRSA.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaint which has been investigated is that Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board (the Board) failed to provide appropriate care to Mrs A between 14 January 2007 and her death on 31 August 2007 (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i) give consideration to the introduction of recorded, validated mental tests on admission for older people (whether the patient is considered confused or not) by way of a base-line assessment to assist in future diagnosis;
• (ii) review policy for handling of hearing aids and assistance available particularly in light of Mrs A’s experience;
• (iii) advise her of the action plan resulting from the November 2007 audit of Ward 45, Ward 46, and Ward 47 at Stobhill Hospital, Glasgow, and
• (iv) advise her of the action plan resulting from the Rehabilitation and Assessment Directorate review of the ‘patient day’.

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

Overview

The complainant (Miss C) raised a number of concerns about the medical and nursing care and treatment of her 74-year-old mother (Mrs A) at Ninewells Hospital in the few months up to her death in a hospice in August 2006.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Mrs A’s care from May to August 2006 was below a reasonable standard (partially upheld - only in respect of record-keeping).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that Tayside NHS Board (the Board) provide the Ombudsman’s office with evidence of appropriate monitoring of the guidelines about long-term feeding lines for diabetic patients.

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