North East Scotland

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) considered that his GP Practice (the Practice) failed to diagnose and treat his illness and he was unhappy that the Practice decided to no longer provide medical treatment to him, his brother and his father.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a) the alleged failure to diagnose and treat Mr C's illness (not upheld); and
• (b) that the decision by the Practice to remove Mr C and his family from their list was wrongly taken (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Practice:

• (i) apologise in writing to Mr C, his brother and his father for the failure to follow the appropriate procedures when taking the decision to remove them from the Practice list; and
• (ii) review how it takes such decisions in light of The National Health Service (General Medical Services Contracts) (Scotland) Regulations 2004, and ensure that Practice policy and actions are compliant with this Statutory Instrument.

The Practice have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.  The Ombudsman asks that the Practice notify her when the recommendations have been implemented.

Overview

The complaint concerned how Dundee College (the College) handled an application for a Higher National Certificate (HNC) course.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the complainant (Ms C) was not satisfied with the reasons given by the College about why her daughter (Ms A)'s application for an HNC course was unsuccessful (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

Although the complaint has not been upheld the Ombudsman recommends that the College consider providing a plain English explanation of the difference between National Qualification (NQ) study and its outcomes when compared with HNC or HND (Higher National Diploma) study, i.e. that an NQ is not a named/group award which results in a named qualification certificate.

The College have accepted the recommendation.

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, complained about various aspects of the treatment of his brother, Mr A, prior to Mr A's death in the Southern General Hospital, Glasgow (the Hospital).  In particular, Mr C complained that Mr A's general practitioner (the GP) failed to diagnose Mr A's brain tumour, and that the care and treatment Mr A received in the Southern General Hospital, Glasgow (the Hospital) was inadequate.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that there was:

• (a) inadequate treatment by the GP (not upheld); and
• (b) inadequate treatment by the Hospital (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a complaint regarding the length of time he had been advised he would have to wait to see a Neurologist within the former Argyll and Clyde NHS Board (the Board), after his General Practitioner (GP 1) had requested a routine referral on his behalf when he presented with a clinical picture of a six to eight month history of a constant ache in his arm.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the waiting time for a Neurology out-patient appointment was too long (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that:

• (i) the Board should ensure GPs and potential referrers are reminded how to find up to date local waiting times for out-patient services they are referring to within the Board so that, as referrers, they may prioritise their patients accordingly. She asks that the Board advise her of the measures that are put in place, or have been introduced, to facilitate this; and
• (ii) as one of several factors, some formal consideration should be given to the age of the patient being referred to a lengthy waiting list, where a list is unavoidably long. She asks that the Board tell her what they have implemented.

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

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) was a patient at Dykebar Hospital (the Hospital), Paisley, in August/September 2003.  She raised a number of issues concerning the conduct and behaviour of Mr and Mrs D (two of the Hospital's staff) towards her and the manner in which the former Argyll and Clyde NHS Board, (the Board) dealt with her complaint.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is the handling of Ms C's complaint by the Board (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i) ensure that they have in place a system for handling complaints that can demonstrate to a complainant that their complaint has been fairly, impartially and thoroughly investigated;
• (ii) ensure that, in particular, they have in place a system for handling complaints in circumstances where serious allegations are made by a patient about a member of staff;
• (iii) ensure that they and their employees understand their responsibilities in relation to protecting staff and patients, particularly in mental health settings;
• (iv) ensure that current arrangements for separating the complaints process from the disciplinary process meet the requirements of the current NHS complaints guidance; and
• (v) issue Ms C with a full formal apology for the failures identified in this report. The apology should be in accordance with the Ombudsman's guidance note on 'apology' (which sets out what is meant and what is required for a meaningful apology).

The Board have accepted the recommendations.

Overview

The complainant, Miss C, complained about the way in which Dundee City Council (the Council) imposed a payment levy in respect of an inspection of her late brother's headstone.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the Council failed to advise Miss C, in advance, of her liability to pay an inspection levy and blamed a monumental mason for not informing her about it (not upheld); and
• (b)  the Council delayed in responding to Miss C's request for details about the inspection and the information she was given was incorrect (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)  in responding to queries, ensure that care is taken when making a response and that all issues are addressed.  Similarly, when internal information is passed to members of the public, it should be clearly understandable; and
• (ii)  apologise to Miss C for their errors and oversight.

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

Overview

The complainants, Mr and Mrs C raised a number of concerns about the way in which the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care (the Care Commission) handled their complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Care Commission:

• (a)  incorrectly advised an adoption agency (the Agency) that Mr C was given a formal warning in relation to inappropriate behaviour (not upheld);
• (b)  failed to confirm that they had not disclosed the information concerned to third parties and that the document(s) involved had been destroyed (not upheld);
• (c)  went beyond their legislative powers and took unnecessary action (not upheld); and
• (d)  delayed in investigating their complaint, resulting in significant repercussions for the complainants (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Care Commission ensure that, in relation to child protection issues and where there are concerns, staff are fully aware of the procedures to be followed.

The Care Commission 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 provided to her by Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board (the Board) following a labyrinthectomy on 22 August 2006.  Miss C also complained about the attitude of a doctor during an eye examination.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Board failed to provide Miss C with appropriate care and treatment in August 2006 (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C), complaining on behalf of Mrs C's late mother (Mrs A), raised concerns regarding an alleged failure by Mrs A's General Practitioner (the GP) to take urgent and appropriate action to investigate and treat problems she was suffering from between May 2006 and July 2006.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the GP failed to take urgent and appropriate action to investigate and treat problems Mrs A was suffering from between May 2006 and July 2006 (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The aggrieved (Ms C) raised concerns that Dundee City Council Social Work Department (the Social Work Department) revealed personal information about her health to her early teenaged child (Child C) after Ms C believed she had been assured that they would not.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Social Work Department divulged personal information about Ms C to her child, contrary to her request and their assurances (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.