Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Ms C complained about the decision not to provide her with a gastric pacemaker (a device that electrically stimulates the muscles that empty the stomach).

We took independent advice from a gastroenterologist (a doctor specialising in the treatment of conditions affecting the liver, intestine and pancreas). We found that the decision not to provide a gastric pacemaker was reasonable as Ms C's symptoms fluctuated, she had other health conditions impacting on her condition and there was limited evidence that the gastric pacemaker would benefit her condition. Therefore, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C, an advocate, complained on behalf of her client (Ms A) about the care and treatment Ms A received at Glasgow Royal Infirmary. Ms A broke her distal fibia (the end of the fibula bone, one of the bones that supports the ankle joint) and underwent surgery to repair the break. Ms C said that the plate was not fixed in the appropriate place, causing poor healing and requiring further surgery to fix the error.

We took independent advice from an orthopaedic surgeon (a specialist in the treatment of diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system). We found that Ms A's treatment was reasonable as the initial operation was carried out appropriately, with the plate and screws reasonably placed. Ms A was then reviewed in further clinics, with appropriate advice given to manage the healing process. There was evidence that the injury was not healing as expected and further investigations, including a CT scan were undertaken. This identified that Ms A had developed a recognised complication which led to the need for a further operation. We considered the treatment Ms A received to be reasonable and did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care provided to his late mother (Mrs A) by the practice. In particular, Mr C said the practice knew that his mother had cancer and had had chemotherapy. However, the family had concerns that on one occasion there was a failure to admit Mrs A to hospital and, on another, a GP had refused to make a home visit. When Mrs A was seen by a different GP the same day, she was admitted to hospital. Mr C felt that given his mother's medical history, the practice could have provided more appropriate care.

We took independent medical advice from a GP. We found that the GPs involved in Mrs A's care carried out appropriate assessments given the reported symptoms. On the first occasion, the GP had contacted the oncology (cancer) specialists for advice as Mrs A was experiencing the side effects of chemotherapy. At that time, it would not have been appropriate to have referred Mrs A to hospital due to the increased risk of her catching an infection from other patients who may have been unwell or from hospital acquired infections. On the second occasion, there was a change in Mrs A's symptoms from when the initial request for a home visit was made. As a result a home visit was arranged and Mrs A was appropriately admitted to hospital at that time. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained about the care and treatment her mother (Mrs A) received at the practice. Mrs A had a history of a number of health issues and Ms C said that the practice failed to monitor her properly or to ensure that she saw a cardiologist (a doctor who specialises in diseases and abnormalities of the heart). She further complained that Mrs A's symptoms were not treated reasonably and the medication she was prescribed was inappropriate.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that Mrs A had been regularly seen, review appointments had been arranged and the medication prescribed was reasonable. At a previous surgery, Mrs A was managed in secondary care (in a hospital by a cardiologist) who had the responsibility for ensuring her ongoing cardiology follow-up and monitoring. We found that the practice had noted that Mrs A had not been to a follow-up and they contacted the hospital to advise them as was appropriate. Therefore, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that he was not made aware of the risk of having a skin-sensitive test before it was performed and that the board failed to ensure the test was carried out in a reasonable way. Mr C suffered from urticaria (hives) and he underwent a Minimal Erythema Dose (MED, short exposure to ultraviolet radiation) test to help inform phototherapy (light) treatment for the condition. Mr  C said that after the test he was left with scarring on his lower back.

We took independent advice from a specialist in dermatology (the branch of medicine concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of skin disorders). We found that there was evidence that the treatment was confirmed to Mr C and the possible side-effects were explained to him. We also found that Mr C signed the form saying the treatment and side-effects had been explained to him. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

In relation to how the test was carried out, we found that Mr C experienced a normal darkening of his skin as a result of the process and this was temporary. We also found that there was no evidence to show the test was carried out in an unreasonable way. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C was attending the endocrinology (the branch of medicine concerned with endocrine glands and hormones) department at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary for tests associated with his body's ability to make a natural steroid hormone. Several month's later he suffered a stroke and he believed that this was a result of him taking testosterone replacement therapy. Mr C complained that during a clinic attendance he was not warned about the risks and benefits of this therapy.

We took independent endocrinology advice. We found that Mr C had been prescribed testosterone replacement therapy by his GP and that it was the responsibility of the prescribing doctor to discuss the risks and benefits with him. When hospital clinicians became aware of the testosterone therapy, they contacted the GP practice to obtain more information and suggested a way forward. We considered this to be reasonable and did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the practice's handling of a phone call made by her late son (Mr A) who had hurt his back. Mr A spoke with a triage nurse, who offered him an appointment with an Extended Scope Practitioner (ESP - a physiotherapist who can undertake extra duties such as ordering investiations or making referrals), which Mr A declined. The triage nurse advised Mr A to take regular paracetmol and ibuprofen, and to seek further assistance if his condition worsened. His request for stronger pain killers and other medication was declined. Mrs C considered that Mr A should have been seen by a GP and complained that Mr A didn't get the help he needed.

We took independent advice from a GP and a nurse. We found that the offer of an appointment with the ESP was reasonable for the assessment of back pain, and that it would have allowed for onward referral to a GP if deemed necessary. We also found that the triage nurse carried out a reasonable assessment and recorded no information that indicated the need for a GP assessment. Therefore, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the clinical treatment which she received at Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary. She had undergone surgery for a leg fracture and she said she was informed by a consultant that the wrong size of screws had been used to fix the fracture. Mrs C felt that her recovery period following the surgery was too long and this was due to the error with the screws used to hold the fracture.

We took independent advice from an orthopaedic consultant (a specialist in the treatment of diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system). We found that the screws which had been used sat slightly differently than would be expected but they were not excessively long. Mrs C had suffered a very significant injury and that would have accounted for her ongoing pain and mobility issues. The screws would have been contributing to the discomfort, however, to a lesser extent than the injury itself. We did not identify any failings in the treatment. Therefore, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the treatment he received for an injury to his achilles tendon (a band of connective tissue joining the heel bone to the calf muscle) at Dumfries & Galloway Royal Infirmary. In particular, Mr C considered that there was a delay in referring him for surgery to repair his achilles tendon. Mr C also complained that, after his surgery, he was not given appropriate treatment for the problems he experienced with the surgical wound.

We took independent advice from a consultant orthopaedic and trauma surgeon (a doctor who diagnoses and treats a wide range of conditions of the musculoskeletal system). We found that it was reasonable that Mr C was initially given conservative (non-surgical) treatment for his injury, by way of a cast. We did not consider there was an unreasonable delay in referring Mr C for surgery on his achilles tendon. The adviser explained that Mr C was at particular risk of the surgical wound being slow to heal. We considered that the treatment Mr C received for his difficulties with the wound was reasonable.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the university failed to take reasonable account of his disabilities in terms of the the impact his medication had had on his exam grades and study skills.

Our investigation found that there were a number of areas, including assessment and agreed support measure, where his needs were addressed and reasonable adjustments were put in place. Additionally, the university had exercised their discretion to allow Mr C to resit modules, in light of the difficulties he had experienced, which they were not obliged to do. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.