Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained about the treatment he received for his wrist injury at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, including that there was a delay in referring him for a surgical opinion.

During our investigation we took independent advice from a specialist in trauma and orthopaedics. The adviser felt there was evidence to favour both surgery and non-surgical treatment for Mr C's injury. They considered that Mr C was reviewed in a timely manner and the decisions taken at those reviews were in keeping with good practice. The adviser did not consider there was a delay in referring Mr C for a surgical opinion. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the prison health centre's decision not to prescribe him sleeping medication that he had previously been prescribed by his community GP.

The information available confirmed that the prison health centre had checked the medications prescribed to Mr C by his community GP. This confirmed that he had been given a two-week supply of the sleeping medication to take as needed.

We took independent clinical advice. The adviser noted that the sleeping medication should only be prescribed for short periods and long-term use was to be avoided. They also noted that Mr C had been prescribed an appropriate detox whilst in prison and that because of this, the decision to not prescribe the sleeping medication was reasonable. Our adviser also confirmed that Mr C was being prescribed appropriate medications for the symptoms he had reported. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Following a private hernia operation, Mr C was referred to the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh for pain management. Mr C had various appointments with a consultant over a nine-month period, and required further surgery. Mr C later complained that the consultant had failed to complete appropriate clinical records which fully explained why he needed further treatment. Mr C told us the lack of records had caused him a problem when he went to get insurance when travelling abroad for work.

We took independent clinical advice. We found Mr C's medical records were of the standard, and in the detail, expected of NHS clinical records. We were satisfied the reason Mr C required surgery was appropriately documented. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C, who works for an advice agency, complained on behalf of her client (Miss A), who said she was suffering from Jarisch Herxheimer's reaction (a physical reaction to the death of microorganisms within the body during antibiotic treatment). Mrs C said Miss A believed that she had not received the appropriate care and treatment from her medical practice. Miss A believed that she had not been prescribed antibiotics appropriately and that the practice had inappropriately interfered with her consultations with hospital specialists.

We took independent medical advice from a GP adviser. The adviser said, and we agreed, that Miss A had been treated appropriately. Jarisch Herxheimer's reaction was an unusual condition and would require diagnosis by a hospital specialist. Miss A had received the appropriate referrals, but the specialists in question had confirmed that Miss A did not have this condition. We found that there was no evidence that the practice had acted inappropriately or that they had attributed Miss A's problems to her mental health.

We found that the care and treatment provided was of a reasonable standard and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C was receiving his medication and an officer observing suspected that Mr C had attempted to conceal his medication. After consultation with the prison doctor, Mr C's medication was discontinued and he was offered an alternative medication.

Mr C complained about the decision to discontinue his medication. He said he had not attempted to conceal the medication and felt his recent dental surgery had affected his ability to take the medication appropriately. We found that the prison health centre had acted appropriately, in line with their protocol, and offered Mr C a reasonable alternative. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C, an advocacy and support worker, complained to the board on behalf of her client (Mrs A) who was admitted to Glasgow Royal Infirmary with a urinary tract infection and was prescribed an antibiotic to take at home. Mrs A was readmitted to hospital some months later with a kidney injury, as a result of sepsis and dehydration. On her initial admission to the hospital, Mrs A was already on medication for high blood pressure and she felt the antibiotic should not have been prescribed.

We took independent medical advice. We found that it was not unreasonable to have prescribed the antibiotic in view of Mrs A's previous medical history. We also found that clinical staff had given advice that Mrs A should seek a further clinical opinion should her symptoms worsen. We therefore did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about a lack of treatment during an admission to the Royal Alexandra Hospital. He had been admitted following fracture of his hip and femur. Mr C said that he vomited throughout one night and now suffers from throat discomfort. He said that although staff changed his basin on occasions he now feels that the lack of treatment for his vomiting caused this.

We took independent medical advice. We found that nursing staff reported the vomiting. The adviser noted that Mr C was stable and that anti-sickness medication was prescribed and that an appropriate treatment plan was put in place. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained that her medical practice unreasonably removed her from the practice patient list because of comments which had been made on her social media site. The practice said that they would not tolerate such comments and that there had been a breakdown in the doctor/patient relationship which meant that it was not possible for them to treat Miss C. They considered the tone of the comments to be both threatening and bereft of any respect for the practice.

We took independent advice from an adviser in general practice and concluded that the comments which were made could be reasonably interpreted as threatening to the practice and as such it was not unreasonable that Miss C was removed without a preceding warning. We found the practice had adhered to their contractual specifications in this regard and their actions were reasonable. We did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C asked the prison health centre to prescribe him a medicine used in the treatment of opiate addiction. The prison health centre refused and explained to Mr C that he did not meet the relevant criteria.

We took independent medical advice. We found that the decision to refuse to prescribe Mr C the medicine he requested was taken following a thorough clinical assessment and that the care and treatment given to him was reasonable. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the prison health centre unreasonably reduced his medication for nerve pain. He said the decision had affected his wellbeing and he wanted to have the dose increased.

The information available confirmed Mr C was reviewed and assessed by a number of clinicians and they did not feel there was any clinical need to increase his medication. We took independent medical advice. The adviser found that the health centre's decision appeared to be reasonable and in line with appropriate guidance. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.