North East Scotland

Overview

A former student (Ms C) at Langside College (the College) complained about the way she had been removed from a course in social care following issues surrounding her placement.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the College did not respond appropriately to concerns about incidents witnessed while Ms C was on placement and safety issues relating to that placement (not upheld);
• (b) the College were incorrect in refusing to accept an alternative placement that had been arranged by Ms C (not upheld); and
• (c) the College acted disproportionately in removing Ms C from her course on the grounds of contravening College rules about placements (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the College:

• (i) draw up written guidance about work placements for students and staff which clarifies their respective responsibilities, ensures adequate preparation for challenging placements and sets out procedures for addressing issues that arise;
• (ii) apologise to Ms C for the way in which she was removed from her course; and
• (iii) review their guidance and practice on the removal of students from courses to ensure that it covers situations like Ms C's.

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

Overview

The complainant, referred to as Mrs C in this report, complained about the delay by Dundee City Council (the Council) in notifying her of an outstanding council tax debt of £3,231.96.  She remained unhappy with the Council's final response to her complaint and asked me to investigate the matter.

Specific complaints and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is the delay by the Council in notifying Mrs C of a council tax debt (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council apologise to Mrs C for the delay in pursuing the debt between June 2002 and August 2005 and consider an appropriate payment arrangement to recover the debt properly due.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns that his father (Mr A) had received inadequate treatment while he was a patient at Ninewells Hospital (the Hospital).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that there was:

• (a) inadequate treatment for Mr A's pressure sores (upheld);
• (b) inadequate monitoring of Mr A's pressure sores (upheld); and
• (c) an inappropriate decision to continue with a course of treatment for Mr A's pressure sores (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i) provide evidence of a robust standard for records and record-keeping and provide evidence of measures that are in place to audit this area of practice;
• (ii) provide evidence that there is a programme of formalised education and training of the staff on Ward 11 with reference to the transfer of patients which includes the importance of effective communication and proactive nursing in relation to this process;
• (iii) provide assurances that they have a robust policy in place regarding inter-ward transfers;
• (iv) devise a quality assurance system whereby all patients suffering from pressure sores have care plans which are sufficiently detailed and also highlight the monitoring arrangements for the patient;
• (v) apologise to Mr A for the failings which have been identified; and
• (vi) reiterate to all relevant staff at the Hospital the importance of clearly recording the factors which lead to a decision regarding continuing or changing treatment.

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

Overview

A student (Ms C) at Cardonald College (the College) complained about the way the College handled her application to progress from one course to another.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) inappropriate questions relating to social skills were asked at Ms C's interview for admission to the Higher National Certificate in Learning and Development (the HNC) course (not upheld);
• (b) the assessment of inter-personal skills for the purpose of admission to the HNC course was not based on clear criteria (not upheld);
• (c) inadequate provision was made for undertaking a unit of the HNC course for someone not in employment (not upheld); and
• (d) a formal complaint was not properly handled: the substantive issue reflected in (a) above was not addressed and there was a potential conflict of interest in relation to the route of appeal offered (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

Mrs C was concerned that her mother, Mrs A, had developed a pressure sore while in Ninewells Hospital (Hospital 1) and this prevented her from accessing stroke rehabilitation services.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the care and treatment received by Mrs A from Hospital 1 was inadequate and reduced her ability to access rehabilitation services (partially upheld to the extent that the Board did not fully respond to concerns raised by Mrs C).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i) apologise to Mrs C for failing to respond clearly to her concerns about the effect on Mrs A of the problems in the care she had received; and
• (ii) use this case as a learning tool for staff to demonstrate the importance of good documentation and the effect that failing to complete documentation can have on patient care.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about the conduct of his academic appeal.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the University of Glasgow (the University) did not properly process Mr C's academic appeal (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the University ensure that proper records are kept of important decisions or exceptional arrangements made in relation to students.

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

Overview

Mr C worked for a charity which helped disabled people to buy their own home.  He complained, on behalf of Mrs A, that changes in Aberdeenshire Council (the Council)'s policy on Housing Improvement Grants were unreasonable and had disadvantaged Mrs A.  Mrs A had made an application for a grant to help her build an extension to her property and Mr C also complained about the length of time it had taken the Council to progress Mrs A's application.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council's changes in their grants award policy were unreasonable (upheld); and
• (b) there was undue delay in processing Mrs A's grant application (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) ensure that, where significant changes to policy are being made, advice on the legal implications of those changes is appropriately taken and recorded; and
• (ii) provide Mr C and the Ombudsman with comments on their current policy on Housing Improvement Grants in the light of the applicable legislation.

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 given to her mother (Mrs A) at Perth Royal Infirmary (the Hospital) following her admission for a suspected oesophageal stent blockage on 9 August 2005.

Specific complains and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that Tayside NHS Board (the Board):

• (a) prescribed morphine unnecessarily (no finding);
• (b) failed to provide appropriate nursing care (partially upheld);
• (c) failed to maintain accurate records (upheld); and
• (d) failed to provide an adequate complaint response (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i) emphasise to nursing staff in the relevant ward the importance of recording in the clinical records any change in the condition of the skin or injury and of ensuring that the commensurate care plan is also formulated and recorded;
• (ii) apologise to Mrs C for the confusion and distress caused by the apparently contradictory nature of some of the responses to her complaints;
• (iii) review the operation of the admission assessment and adopt a consistent process for recording alterations within the assessment;
• (iv) use the events of this complaint in a multi-disciplinary team meeting to illustrate the impact of poor complaint handling and record-keeping on the patient/carer experience; and
• (v) ask that those responsible for providing complaint responses ensure that, where possible, evidence, comment or information is obtained from and checked against, original sources.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) complained that Stow College (the College) failed to record his daughter (Ms A)'s attendance at classes correctly and that as a result she was not paid a bursary.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Ms A's attendance at the College was not correctly recorded (no finding); and
• (b) a bursary award was not paid to Ms A (no finding).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the College consider using this case as a starting point to review their procedures for confirming and recording student attendance and enrolment, and on how they communicate with students where there is doubt about their attendance or enrolment status.

The College have accepted the recommendation and, also in line with College practice, have initiated a review.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) is 16 and was born with a progressive spinal deformity, for which he was reviewed in Glasgow between the ages of five months and 13 years.  When he was 13, the service was transferred to Edinburgh.  At review there, five months later, Mr C was told that an operation some years previously could have prevented his current, permanent, deformity.  Mr C complained, therefore, about not having had such an operation in Glasgow.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaint which has been investigated is that it was unreasonable not to have performed an operation at an early age (not upheld).

The investigation has involved consideration of a number of issues to do with clinical practice and arrangements for the provision of health services which, although not all specifically raised in Mr C's complaint, are relevant to any assessment of how his healthcare needs have been addressed.  Paragraph 1 of the main report outlines these issues.

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.