North East Scotland

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the nursing care which he received during his admission to Dr Gray's Hospital (the Hospital), the advice given to him about MRSA and the way his complaint was handled by Grampian NHS Board (the Board).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Mr C did not receive adequate emotional support during his admission to the Hospital (upheld);
• (b) nursing staff advised Mr C's wife to leave the ward due to things being too busy (upheld);
• (c) Mr C was not given clear information in relation to the Board's visitor policy and the risks of MRSA (not upheld);
• (d) Mr C's chemotherapy was carried out in a ward setting and he was required to answer personal questions within earshot of other patients (not upheld);
• (e) Mr C's concerns were ignored when he raised them with the specialist nurses (partially upheld to the extent that Mr C was not given feedback about the way in which his complaints were dealt with); and
• (f) the Board failed to adhere to the NHS complaints handling procedure when investigating Mr C's complaint (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i) ensure that staff assess the emotional needs of patients, especially those with the diagnosis of a life threatening or limiting illness, and plan care appropriate to this assessment;
• (ii) apologise to Mr C for their failure to formally assess his need for emotional support;
• (iii) review their visiting policy and consider whether to include guidance on the application of discretion according to the circumstances;
• (iv) remind relevant staff to ensure that they respond fully to all elements of complaints;
• (v) remind staff: of their role in the complaints process; to take steps to identify complaints; and to feedback to patients any steps taken as a result of their complaint and any response to the complaint; and
• (vi) consider whether, in these sorts of circumstances, it may be appropriate to use conciliation or mediation as part of the complaints process.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the actions of Glasgow City Council (the Council) in relation to the introduction of a Controlled Parking Scheme (CPS) in certain areas of Glasgow.  Mr C had specific concerns about elements of the consultation and decision-making processes as well as the eventual introduction of the CPS.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) inappropriately asserted, prior to the consultation process, that the CPS would go ahead, and acted to that end before the committee vote (not upheld);
• (b) failed, during the statutory consultation period, to display and maintain all notices and information sources required by statute (not upheld);
• (c) mis-stated the reasons for the proposed measures (not upheld);
• (d) employed inappropriate methods during the consultation process that had the effect of reducing the number of objections registered in time and misrepresenting the number of submitted objections (not upheld);
• (e) inappropriately discussed the matter at a meeting of the Roads and Lighting Committee Convener's sub-committee (not upheld);
• (f) failed to implement the scheme as voted for by the Roads and Lighting Committee (not upheld); and
• (g) inappropriately failed to notify certain organisations of the proposals (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns regarding the care and treatment of her husband (Mr C) during admissions to Glasgow Royal Infirmary (Hospital 1) in October 2004 and March 2005.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board (the Board):

• (a) failed to store medication appropriately and supervise drug-taking (upheld);
• (b) told Mrs C that failure to administer Warfarin was the cause of Mr C's stroke and Mrs C believed that the alleged failures relating to the storage of Mr C's drugs and supervision of his drug-taking between 4 and 6 October 2004 might have contributed to the stroke (partially upheld to the extent that there were failures in monitoring Mr C's INR during the admission);
• (c) inappropriately discharged Mr C too soon (not upheld);
• (d) failed to notice that Mr C was suffering from constipation while in hospital (upheld);
• (e) failed to provide any home help to Mrs C after her husband was discharged from hospital (no finding); and
• (f) failed to investigate Mrs C's complaint in a timely fashion or respond to all the points raised and adhere to NHS complaints guidelines and failed to clarify why the complaint was responded to from the complaints team at Stobhill Hospital (Hospital 2) rather than at Hospital 1 (partially upheld to the extent that the Board failed to respond to the complaint within the timescale required in NHS complaints guidelines and did not respond to all the points raised).

As the investigation progressed, I identified issues concerning Mr C's clinical records and his post-operative management.  I, therefore, informed the Board and Mrs C that the investigation would additionally consider the following points:

• (g) Mr C's discharge summary dated 26 October 2004  included details about another patient (upheld); and
• (h) the Board failed to carry out Mr C's post-operative management appropriately from 2 March 2005 onwards (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i) apologise to Mr C and Mrs C for their failure to monitor Mr C's bowel movements and for any discomfort or pain he would have suffered as a result;
• (ii) write to Mrs C repeating the apologies they have provided to me regarding their failure to handle her complaint properly;
• (iii) put measures in place to ensure that meaningful medical records are made on a daily basis;
• (iv) put measures in place to ensure that when investigations are carried out they are recorded and the results documented and where there are abnormalities, entries in the medical records should acknowledge them and record medical staff's intentions regarding them;
• (v) monitor and audit the effectiveness of the measures taken as a result of recommendations (iii) and (iv);
• (vi) consider Adviser 2's comments about the management of anaemia and review their practice with advice from, for example, a physician in charge of elderly patients. This review should lead to an agreed policy being formulated, which should particularly be directed towards post-operative care; and
• (vii) regularly review patients' medications so that inappropriate treatments are noted and, if necessary, stopped.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the care and treatment he received from Western Isles NHS Board (Board 1) and Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board (Board 2) following a sudden onset of severe leg pain in November 2005.  Mr C also complained about the handling of his complaints by both Boards.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Board 1 failed to provide timely or appropriate care and treatment to Mr C (not upheld);
• (b) Board 1 failed to promptly or adequately address Mr C's complaints (not upheld);
• (c) Board 2 failed to provide timely or appropriate care and treatment to Mr C (not upheld) and;
• (d) Board 2 failed to promptly or adequately address Mr C's complaints (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) complained on behalf of her daughter (Miss A).  She said that Aberdeen City Council (the Council) allocated Miss A a flat in 2002 that they had failed to designate as amenity housing due to an administrative failure.  In February 2006, Miss A applied to the Council to buy the property.  The Council wrote to Miss A on 10 August 2006 to advise that her application had been refused.  They said that the flat had facilities that were substantially different from those of a normal property.  They stated that it had been designed and adapted for occupation by a person of pensionable age, whose special needs require accommodation of the kind provided by the flat.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Miss A has not been able to purchase her Council flat under the right to buy scheme, because of an administrative failure by the Council (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman considers a proposal made by the Council to Miss A to be a reasonable response and is satisfied as far as is possible that the Council have now taken steps to address the complaint.  The Ombudsman also welcomes the Council's assurance that they will take a similar approach in response to other complaints of this nature.  In light of this, the Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

Mr C complained that Aberdeenshire Council (the Council) did not inform the complainant's co‑proprietors when issuing a Defective Buildings Notice that, because their property is listed, the work would have to meet listed building requirements.  He also complained that the Council failed to provide him with assistance to repair the building.  Furthermore, he was dissatisfied with the handling of his formal complaint to the Council.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a) shortcoming in the serving of a Defective Buildings Notice (partially upheld);
• (b) failure to provide assistance in the repair of a listed building (not upheld); and
• (c) shortcoming in the handling of a formal complaint (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) review their current recording practices, in respect of keeping a note of discussions from visits;
• (ii) decide what action is required, in respect of the outstanding Defective Buildings Notice; and
• (iii) send an apology to the complainant in recognition of any difficulty he experienced as a result of the lack of clarity in their previous complaints procedure.

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

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, raised a number of concerns about the way in which Glasgow City Council (the Council) dealt with Mr A's application for Housing and Council Tax Benefit.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Mr A's claim for Housing and Council Tax Benefit made in January 2006 was not processed until July 2006 (upheld);
• (b) payment was not received until 2 August 2006 (partially upheld);
• (c) the Council wrongly denied that they were aware that Mr A was suffering distress as a consequence of their delay (upheld); and
• (d) a change of circumstances reported to the Council in August 2006 was not processed until November 2006 (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council consider favourably any reasonable claim for out of pocket expenses that Mr A may make and apologise to him for their failure to recognise his distress and for their delay in determining his claim.

The Council have accepted the recommendations and acted on them accordingly.

Overview

Mr C complained about the treatment he received when he was a patient in Glasgow Royal Infirmary.  In particular, he said that his condition was misdiagnosed and, therefore, he did not receive appropriate, timely treatment.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Mr  C's condition was misdiagnosed, in that he had pleurisy rather than pneumonia; had he had a CT scan at the outset, his diagnosis would have been quite clear (not upheld);
• (b) as a consequence of Mr C's condition being incorrectly diagnosed, he did not receive appropriate, timely treatment and an antibiotic was incorrectly administered (partially upheld); and
• (c) staff failed to listen to him and an x‑ray was taken covertly (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board emphasise to staff that extreme care should be taken when drugs are being administered and recorded.

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

Overview

The complainant Mr C complained on behalf of his wife (Mrs C) about what happened when she attended the Accident and Emergency Department at Perth Royal Infirmary (Hospital 1).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Mrs C was inappropriately referred to the out-of-hours service (not upheld);
• (b) Hospital 1 failed to diagnose Mrs C's condition (not upheld); and
• (c) Mrs C was treated rudely and uncaringly by the Emergency Nurse Practitioner (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board review the completion of triage documentation in the Accident and Emergency Department of Hospital 1 to ensure the reasons for the triage assessment are documented.

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

Overview

The complainant (Miss C), a flat owner in a Category B listed tenement building, raised a number of concerns about the handling by Dundee City Council (the Council) of development proposals concerning an adjacent property.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council did not take action to ensure that building works would not harm the integrity of the listed building (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.