Not upheld, no recommendations
Summary
Mrs C complained about the care and treatment provided to her husband (Mr A) by the board. She complained that there was an unreasonable delay in the board diagnosing Mr A with lymphoma (cancer of the lymph nodes). She also complained that a doctor had refused to sign a Personal Independence Payment (PIP) form for Mr A when he became ill. (Personal Independence Payment is a benefit that can be awarded to those with long-term ill-health or a disability to help cover the additional costs of their illness.) Lastly, she complained that the board did not provide a reasonable standard of palliative care to Mr A.
We took independent advice on the complaint from a nursing adviser, a GP and a surgical consultant. We found that the board carried out reasonable investigations into Mr A's presenting symptoms over a period of several years and there were no signs of lymphoma that were unreasonably missed. We found that there was no evidence to suggest that a doctor had refused to sign a PIP form. We also found that whilst there was some delay in Mr A receiving appropriate medication before his death, the standard of palliative care provided to him was reasonable.
Summary
Mr C complained that although he suffered from mental health issues, the diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome he had been given was incorrect.
Mr C said that he had not been listened to by medical staff and that his opinion and symptoms had been ignored. Mr C believed that medical staff had chosen to inaccurately record his symptoms, in order to protect their colleagues who had given him the original diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome. Mr C said his assessments had not been properly carried out and the appropriate diagnostic tools and techniques had not been used. Mr C said the board were unreasonably refusing to provide him with a second opinion.
We took independent medical advice and found that Mr C had been diagnosed following a period of observation and assessment. This included a detailed history as well as information supplied by other mental health professionals and direct observation of Mr C. The diagnostic process was reasonable and in keeping with the current guidelines and had taken place over four separate assessments. The adviser said it was reasonable for further assessments to be refused by the board, as Mr C had had a number of assessments by different doctors, which had all reached the same conclusion. Additionally, Mr C's focus on his diagnosis was preventing him from following his treatment programme. As another assessment was unlikely to reach a different conclusion, it would not be helpful for Mr C. We found Mr C was assessed reasonably by the board, who were able to demonstrate they had followed the appropriate guidance. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.
Summary
Miss C complained that her medical practice failed to fit her intrauterine contraceptive device (IUCD) appropriately and that it had perforated her uterus. She complained to the practice but it was their view that it had been fitted reasonably.
We took independent medical advice and found that prior to the procedure to fit the device, in accordance with national guidance, Miss C had been fully informed about its risks and benefits, including that the IUCD could perforate the uterus. There was no evidence to suggest that the IUCD had been fitted inappropriately and the complaint was not upheld.
Summary
Ms C complained about the care and treatment in hospital of her daughter (Miss A) who suffers from complex regional pain syndrome (a painful condition normally treated with desensitisation and physiotherapy). Miss A was admitted to the hospital where she has remained for over a year without improvement to her condition. Ms C raised concerns that Miss A was not receiving appropriate specialist input as staff at the hospital did not have experience with Miss A's condition. Ms C also said Miss A was not able to get quality sleep due to her position on the ward, which Ms C considered was impacting on her rehabilitation and exacerbating her pain.
The board said Miss A had received appropriate care from an experienced team but she had not felt able to participate with the physiotherapy and desensitisation program, so her condition had not improved. The board explained that the decision to keep Miss A in a central location was due to her high falls risk. While they agreed that lack of sleep was not desirable, they did not consider that this was impacting on Miss A's rehabilitation.
After taking independent advice from a consultant in pain management and a nurse, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint. We found Miss A's care involved appropriate input from a multi-disciplinary team. The medical adviser considered that the team were appropriately experienced and qualified to manage this case and noted that the team had also discussed the case with clinicians both within and outside the UK. In relation to Miss A's position on the ward, both advisers considered this was appropriate in view of the risk assessments carried out by staff.
Summary
Mr C complained that the board failed to provide reasonable care and treatment following his report of concerns about his testicular health. He also complained that the handling of his complaint about these concerns fell below a reasonable standard.
We took independent advice from a GP adviser. They noted that the actions taken by the doctors who saw Mr C had been in keeping with the appropriate guidelines relating to problems with the testicles. Mr C had been appropriately referred for review by a specialist, although his case did not meet the threshold for an urgent referral. We found that although Mr C had experienced a delay in receiving assessment by a specialist at hospital, this was not the fault of the GP who referred him. When Mr C complained about the delay, the GP contacted the appropriate hospital department and requested an update on Mr C's appointment. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint about the care and treatment provided to him.
In terms of the handling of Mr C's complaints, we found that although the board had exceeded their 20-day target for responding, they kept Mr C informed of the progress of their investigation. We found that the handling of Mr C's complaints was reasonable. We therefore did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.
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.