Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Miss C complained about the care and treatment provided to her by the GP practice. Ms C has complex medical conditions and was concerned about a medication being stopped, a decision to refer her to a specialist and the way in which a blood sample was taken.

We took independent advice from a GP. In relation to the medication being stopped, we found that it was reasonable and safe for the practice to do this whilst waiting for a referral to a specialist. The GP had also asked Miss C to arrange an appointment with them if she wanted to discuss this.

In relation to the referral to a specialist, Miss C felt that this was unnecessary. We considered the referral to be reasonable in order to establish the medical reason for Miss C's symptoms.

Miss C was concerned about her vein being 'blown' when blood was taken, however, she did not raise this with the practice at the time. The GP subsequently apologised and said they were unaware of this as they were able to continue to draw blood.

Miss C also raised concerns about communication from the practice regarding her medication being stopped. The practice accepted that this was the case, apologised and altered the way in which this would be communicated in future. We considered that the care and treatment Miss C received was reasonable and we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Ms C, an advocate, complained on behalf of her client (Mrs A) about a delay in diagnosing gastric diverticulum (a pouch protruding from the gastric wall) and subsequent treatment. Ms C raised concerns that Mrs A underwent unnecessary repeat tests because the initial investigations had not been interpreted properly.

We took independent advice from a consultant general and colorectal surgeon (a physician who specialises in the medical and surgical treatment of conditions that affect the lower digestive tract). We found it was reasonable that the gastric diverticulum had not been picked up on the initial tests, given it is a rare condition, and that there had been other reasonable explanations for Mrs A's abdominal pain and weight loss. We considered it was appropriate to repeat Mrs A's tests, at which time the gastric diverticulum was identified. We concluded that the delay in diagnosis was not unreasonable and treatment was carried out thereafter within a timely manner. We, therefore, did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the standard of aftercare she received at Raigmore Hospital following hip surgery, both in terms of the orthopaedic care (treatment of diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system) and physiotherapy care (treatment of disease, injury, or deformity by physical methods such as massage, heat treatment, and exercise). Mrs C said that her thigh should have been physically examined by the surgeon as she found out later that she had weakness in her thigh muscle and that physiotherapy staff did not provide treatment at two appointments she attended.

We took independent advice from a consultant orthopaedic surgeon and a physiotherapist. In terms of the orthopaedic care, we found that an x-ray was appropriately carried out which confirmed Mrs C's fracture was healing. We considered that there was no requirement to perform a physical examination of Mrs C's thigh and it would be accepted that she would have weakness with this type of injury and associated surgery. We noted that Mrs C also received support by way of a referral to the hip fracture service.

In terms of the physiotherapy care, we established that no specific referral had been made to the service in relation to Mrs C's hip. We considered that appropriate treatment was provided in response to the GP referral for carpal tunnel (a medical condition where there is pressure on a nerve in the wrist). Furthermore, reasonable action was taken by physiotherapy staff to refer Mrs C to the orthotic clinic (the branch of medicine that deals with the provision and use of artificial devices such as splints and braces) regarding her leg length discrepancy following hip surgery. We concluded that the aftercare was of a reasonable standard and did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C, an MSP, complained on behalf of her constituent (Mr B). Mr B had concerns that his late mother (Mrs A) who suffered from COPD (a chronic inflammatory lung disease) had been discharged from Vale Of Leven Hospital. Mrs A was readmitted to hospital the day following discharge with pneumonia and died a few days later. Mr B felt that Mrs A should not have been discharged from hospital while she still had an infection.

We took independent advice from a consultant physician. We found that Mrs A was prone to suffering chest infections in view of her COPD. Prior to the hospital discharge there was evidence that Mrs A's health had improved and that there was no clinical need for her to remain in hospital. Arrangements were made for an appropriate care package to be in place at home and Mrs A was in agreement with this. Mrs A then quickly went on to develop a new infection, which could not be predicted, and she did not recover from it during her readmission to hospital. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care and treatment provided by the practice for his skin issues, sinus issues and headaches.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that there was no evidence of any delay in Mr C being referred to the Plastic Surgery Unit at the board for his skin issues and that the care and prescriptions Mr C received for his sinus symptoms were reasonable. Mr C's symptoms were consistent with a working diagnosis of allergic rhinitis. There is no evidence of any delay in the treatment Mr C received or the management of his sinus symptoms. We found the assessment and management of Mr C's headache symptoms was reasonable. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the board unreasonably cancelled his nose operation and did not provide a reasonable explanation as to why. Mr C suffers from allergic rhinitis (inflammation of the inside of the nose caused by an allergen). Mr C said that the other treatments offered were not taken forward.

We took independent medical advice from an ear, nose and throat surgeon. We found that Mr C's treatment by the board was reasonable and found no failings in the treatment offered. Mr C was referred for alternative treatments as had been agreed with the surgeon. The proposed operation could have provided some limited benefit to Mr C, although it would have not stopped him requiring long- term medication to manage his allergic rhinitis. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr  C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, an MP, complained on behalf of his constituent (Ms A) that her medical practice failed unreasonably to refer her to community mental health care services, and later dealt unreasonably with her complaint about this.

Ms A believed that her GP treated her differently after incorrect information was sent to the medical practice by a clinician. While the information was corrected and apologies were made, Ms A said that it had negatively effected her mental health. While Ms A said she requested on many occasions to be referred to a community mental health care service, she was not referred.

We took independent advice from a GP . We found that the advice given to Ms A had been reasonable and signposting to community mental health support services was appropriate in the circumstances.

Ms A also complained that a member of staff had unreasonably been involved in the complaints process. We found no evidence of this . The complaints were not upheld.

Summary

Mr C complained about aspects of his care and treatment which he received at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary. Mr C said that he received inconsistent explanations from staff about the cause of his back pain. He was also dissatisfied with the pain relief which was provided as it did not meet his needs.

We took independent medical advice from a consultant neurosurgeon (surgeon of the brain or other nerve tissue). We found that Mr C had a complex surgical history and a chronic pain condition. We found that although the staff had referred to the cause of Mr C's back pain differently at times, the explanations had the same meaning and that did not mean that his treatment was inappropriate. We also found that there was record of Mr C reporting pain and that the actions of staff by prescribing different painkillers and referring Mr C to the pain clinic were appropriate. We did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Ms C complained that the decision to stop her medication when she arrived at prison was unreasonable. When Ms C arrived in prison, a doctor reviewed her prescribed medications. The doctor discussed the matter with Ms C's community practice and following that, took the decision to stop the medications no longer required. Ms C said that the stopping of her medications left her in severe pain and affected her mental health.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser. We found that appropriate pain relief medication had been prescribed to Ms C and that the decision to stop the other medications was reasonable because there was no requirement indicated for them to be continued. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained about the treatment she received from her dentist. She said that she had presented with a small chip on a tooth and that the dentist had put on a small filling which repeatedly fell off. Miss C said that at the time of the filling the dentist ground the tooth down with an implement. Miss C said that when the filling fell out she was left with an unsightly tooth and she continually had to pay for the filling to be replaced.

We took independent advice from a dentist. We found that there was no evidence that the treatment provided was inappropriate or that it was the cause of the filling repeatedly falling out. The records indicated that the dentist had listened to Miss C's concerns about the tooth and explained the potential treatment options. We considered that the problems Miss C reported to the dentist were likely to have been caused by natural wear and tear and that it was appropriate to have offered her the different treatment options. We did not uphold the complaint.