Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf of her husband (Mr A) about the care and treatment he received. Mr A was admitted to Queen Margaret Hospital for surgery to treat a hernia (where an internal part of the body pushes through a weakness in the muscle or tissue near the belly button). He was discharged home on the same day as his surgery. However, Mr A began to experience pain at home that worsened overnight. Early the next morning, Mr A was taken by ambulance to Victoria Hospital. He was found to have suffered a serious complication from his surgery.

Mrs C complained that Mr A should not have been discharged home after his surgery at Queen Margaret Hospital. We took independent advice from a general and colorectal surgeon (a surgeon who specialises in conditions in the colon, rectum or anus). We found that it was reasonable that Mr A was discharged home, as his did not yet have signs of any complication from the surgery and his recovery was as expected. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Mrs C also complained that when Mr A arrived at Victoria Hospital, he was not assessed at A&E before he was transferred to the surgical assessment unit. We took independent advice from an emergency medicine consultant. We found the board's process is that where a patient has recently undergone surgery, they are transferred straight to the surgical assessment unit if they are clinically stable. We found that the process was reasonable and safe and it did not cause any undue delay in Mr A's care and treatment. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the lack of pain relief provided to his late mother (Mrs A) and that she did not have a regular doctor who saw her during her admission to Castle Douglas Hospital. Mr C also complained about the board's communication with him about the decline in his mother's condition.

We took independent advice from a nursing adviser. We found that Mrs A's pain was assessed appropriately during her admission and the pain relief provided to her was reasonable. Mrs A was reviewed by doctors during her admission and the input from medical staff was reasonable. We also found that the board's communication with Mr C was reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment given to her late husband (Mr A) by the practice before his death. In particular, she said that he was given a specific medication in tablet form althought it was known that he had swallowing problems, that communication from the practice had been poor and that Mr A had had sepsis (a blood infection) which had gone undiagnosed.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that Mr A was taking many different medications all in tablet form and there was no information in his medical records to indicate that he had a problem swallowing medication. We also found that the records showed appropriate communication and no evidence that Mr A had sepsis.

We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, a legal representative, complained on behalf of his client (Mr A) who was withdrawn from his course at the university. Mr C complained that the university failed to follow their academic engagement and attendance procedures in relation to meeting with Mr A to discuss his absences, and that the university had failed to consider all of the grounds of appeal.

We found that the university had emailed Mr A regarding his absences on at least five occasions, and had met with him to discuss his absences, prior to him being withdrawn from the course. We therefore considered that the university had followed the academic engagement and attendance procedures and we did not uphold this complaint.

We also found that it was clear that Mr A had the opportunity to present his appeal to the committee and that the committee had sight of documents submitted in support of the appeal. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) unreasonably refused to allow him access to a laptop. Mr C said that he had a degenerative condition (a disease in which the function or structure of the affected tissues or organs worsens over time) and a laptop had specialist software that would allow him to communicate as his condition progressed.

We found that the SPS responded reasonably to Mr C's request. We also noted that once Mr C had received a specialist assessment for his degenerative condition, the prison service had agreed to work with his medical team to resolve the issue. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C was also concerned about the way his complaint was handled. We found that the SPS handled Mr C's complaint reasonably and did not uphold this aspect of his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his mother (Ms A) about the partnership's decision to discharge Ms A from hospital based care and into a care home.

We took independent medical advice. We found that the partnership had followed Scottish Government guidance in both reaching their decision, and in processing Mr C's appeal of that decision. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the treatment which she received at Ninewells Hospital. Mrs C had been receiving iloprost infusions (intravenous medication) for a number of years for her medical conditions which included Raynaud's disease (numbness in fingers or toes). However, the board had changed the criteria for iloprost infusions and advised Mrs C that the infusions would stop. Mrs C felt that this was unfair as the treatment had provided her with relief from her symptoms.

We took independent advice from a consultant physician and rheumatologist (a doctor who specialises in the diagnosis and treatment of rheumatism, arthritis, and other disorders of the joints, muscles, and ligaments). We found that the criteria followed by the board in relation to iloprost infusions was reasonable and that while Mrs C may have benefitted from the treatment, there was no clinical evidence that this was the case. We also found that the board had offered to refer Mrs C to another health board who would offer the treatment as a temporary measure. The board also suggested reasonable alternative treatment options and were continuing to do so. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained to us about the care and treatment her son (Mr A) had received at Ninewells Hospital. Mr A was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) with pneumonia (an infection of the lungs) and died within a month of his admission. In particular, Ms C complained that there was a delay in referring Mr A for surgery to treat his pneumonia.

We took independent advice from a consultant in intensive care medicine. We found that there were no failings in the management of Mr A's pneumonia and that his treatment was reasonable and appropriate.

Ms C also complained that Mr A was kept awake during his time in the ICU, even though he had mental health issues and he was experiencing alcohol and nicotine withdrawal. We found that Mr A's level of sedation was assessed appropriately on a daily basis and that he was given a combination of sedative medication that was appropriate for his individual needs. However, we found that in future, the board may wish to consider the use of nicotine patches for patients withdrawing from nicotine.

Ms C raised concerns that there were delays in treating Mr A's diarrhoea. We found that he was appropriately investigated for any underlying infection and in the meantime, his diarrhoea was managed appropriately through the use of a flexiseal device (a bowel movement management device).

We considered that the care and treatment Mr A received was reasonable and did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, an MSP, complained on behalf of his constituent (Mrs A) about the decision taken by the board not to offer Mrs A surgery to her wrist. Mr C said that the board had not reached the decision based on full information.

We took independent advice from a consultant plastic and hand surgeon (a surgeon who repairs or reconstructs missing or damaged tissue and skin). We found that the decision not to offer surgery was reasonable and had been made by a number of experienced surgeons together in a mutlidisciplinary setting. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment given to her elderly mother (Mrs  A) by both the out-of-hours (OOH) service and the Emergency Department (ED) of the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital. She said that Mrs A called the OOH service early in the morning as she feared she had sepsis (a blood infection). A GP attended and decided that she could remain at home. Mrs C believed that Mrs A should have been admitted to hospital. Later the same day, Mrs C took Mrs A to the ED as she said that she was experiencing rigours (episodes of shaking). She was later discharged. Mrs C said that Mrs A had to return to hospital within the week, when she was diagnosed as having sepsis.

We took independent advice from a GP and from a consultant in emergency medicine. We found that both at home and in hospital, Mrs A had been treated reasonably. The GP initially examining her had found her temperature, pulse rate, oxygen saturation and blood pressure all to be in the normal range. She had no 'red flags' in terms of the guidance and she was given clear advice about what to do if her condition worsened. When Mrs A attended the ED, all the tests undertaken were normal and did not indicate further screening. As Mrs C was unhappy with this, further examination was made, but again this did not indicate admission or screening for sepsis. While Mrs C said that Mrs A went on to develop sepsis within a few days, we found that this was not unusual. We did not uphold the complaints.