Not upheld, no recommendations
Summary
Mrs C, who works for an advocacy and support agency, complained on behalf of her client (Mr A) that he was unreasonably discharged from an ophthalmology clinic at Wishaw General Hospital. Mr A believed he should be reviewed regularly with an ophthalmologist, rather than being seen by his local optometrist.
We took independent ophthalmological advice and found that due to Mr A's late stage glaucoma (a condition where the optic nerve is damaged that can cause blindness) and other underlying health issues it was reasonable for the board to state that there was no further surgical intervention that could be taken. We found that Mr A's optician would be able to review and manage his eyes and that it was not necessary for Mr A to continue to be reviewed at the ophthalmology clinic. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.
Summary
Mrs C complained that her dentist had failed to provide her with appropriate treatment for an infection in her gum. Mrs C said that this had caused her stress and anxiety as she felt she had not been diagnosed correctly.
We took independent dental advice and found that both the examination and the treatment Mrs C received were reasonable and appropriate. We did not uphold the complaint.
Summary
Mrs C complained that her dentist had failed to provide her with appropriate treatment for an infection in her gum. Mrs C said that this had caused her stress and anxiety as she felt she had not been diagnosed correctly.
We took independent dental advice and found that both the examination and the treatment Mrs C received were reasonable and appropriate. We did not uphold the complaint.
Summary
Mrs C complained that her dentist had failed to provide her with appropriate treatment for an infection in her gum. Mrs C said that this had caused her stress and anxiety as she felt she had not been diagnosed correctly.
We took independent dental advice and found that both the examination and the treatment Mrs C received were reasonable and appropriate. We did not uphold the complaint.
Summary
Mrs C, who works for an advice and support agency, complained on behalf of her client (Ms A) that her medical practice had failed to investigate, diagnose and treat her symptoms. We took independent medical advice and found that Ms A had previously been referred to a number of specialists. She had no new symptoms that warranted further investigation and it was reasonable not to refer her back to the specialists. We found that the care provided by the practice had been of a reasonable standard and we did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.
Ms A considered that she was suffering from Jarisch Herxheimer's reaction (a physical reaction within the body during antibiotic treatment). Mrs C complained that the practice had unreasonably stated that this was not the cause of Ms A's symptoms. We found that this had already been investigated in hospital and there was no evidence that this was the diagnosis. We considered that the practice's comments in relation to this matter had been reasonable and we did not uphold the complaint.
Mrs C also complained that it was unreasonable for the practice to suggest in their diagnosis that that there were psychological or psychiatric factors which were worsening Ms A's physical symptoms. We found that the practice's clinical assessment and opinion on this matter had been reasonable and we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.
Summary
Mrs C complained about the care and treatment provided to her by her medical practice in relation to her ongoing ankle pain.
During our investigation we took independent advice from a GP adviser. The advice we received was that the care and treatment provided by the practice in relation to the ongoing management of Mrs C's ankle injury was of a reasonable standard and no failings were identified. We did not uphold the complaint.
Summary
Mrs C complained on behalf of her son (Mr A), who was admitted to the Royal Alexandra Hospital with kidney failure and physical collapse. He was transferred to the Western Infirmary and was diagnosed with neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS), a rare condition caused by some medications (particularly antipsychotics). Mrs C was concerned that Mr A's overall treatment pathway for the previous ten years led to his collapse. In particular, Mrs C felt that the clinicians treating Mr A had inappropriately used strong antipsychotic drugs and had not taken into account Mr A's particular risk factors in relation to his medication. Mrs C also felt the board had ignored alternative treatment options for Mr A, including an alternative diagnosis of an anxiety disorder. Mrs C also complained about the board's handling of her complaint to them.
The board met with Mrs C and wrote several letters in response to her complaint and further queries. While the board acknowledged the severe impact of NMS on Mr A, they said that NMS is a rare and unpredictable event, and they considered Mr A's treatment was appropriate in view of his chronic psychotic illness. The board noted that Mrs C disagreed with clinicians about Mr A's diagnosis.
After taking independent psychiatric advice, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaints. While we found that Mr A's NMS was caused by his medications, the adviser explained that the risk of NMS was very small and the decisions made about Mr A's medication during this period were in line with the relevant guidance and standard practice. We found no evidence that the board had failed to consider Mr A's particular risk factors or the alternative diagnosis suggested by some clinicians. While we acknowledged that Mrs C was not satisfied with the board's response to her complaint, we did not find any failings in their complaint investigation or replies.
Summary
Miss C suffered burns to her legs and attended A&E at Glasgow Royal Infirmary. She complained that she had received an inadequate standard of treatment and that she had been inappropriately discharged. She said that she had been discharged the same day, despite being unsteady on her feet, and that she was asked to attend a burns clinic the following day. Miss C said that on attendance at the burns clinic, she was admitted to the hospital and spent two weeks as an in-patient.
We took independent medical advice from a consultant in emergency medicine. The adviser said that Miss C had been appropriately assessed at the hospital and that it was reasonable for her to have been discharged once her pain had been brought under control. They noted that Miss C had been accompanied and that her discharge had been in line with standard practice. The adviser also noted that there was no defined standard for admission with the type of burn Miss C had sustained and that her medical records supported the decision not to admit her. Miss C's subsequent admission had been prolonged due to an infection in her wound, which had not been present at the time of her first attendance. Miss C's length of stay was therefore not due only to the severity of her burns.
We found that the board acted reasonably both in terms of the care and treatment provided to Miss C and in terms of the decision to discharge her. We therefore did not uphold Miss C's complaint.
Summary
Mr C complained that the board had acted unreasonably by not offering him surgery to address his back, leg and foot pain.
We took independent advice from an orthopaedic surgeon. They noted that at the time of the board's decision, surgery was not appropriate for Mr C. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.
Summary
Mr C complained that staff at University Hospital Ayr failed to provide him with appropriate clinical treatment, based on the symptoms he reported.
Mr C experienced pain in his back and dropped foot (a muscular weakness that makes it difficult to lift the front part of the foot and toes). Mr C's GP arranged for him to attend A&E and he was seen by members of the hospital's orthopaedic team. A diagnosis was made of a prolapsed intervertebral disc (ruptured disc in the spine) with associated motor weakness. The decision was made not to treat Mr C surgically at that time. An MRI scan was also considered to be unnecessary. Mr C was referred to his GP to arrange physiotherapy and he saw a physiotherapist some days later. Based on Mr C's symptoms, he was then referred to hospital and received an MRI scan and an emergency operation.
After receiving independent advice from an orthopaedic surgeon, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. We found that an examination of Mr C at A&E did not reveal red flag features (features which would have required urgent intervention). In this context, we found that the plan of management without surgery adopted at A&E was appropriate. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.