Not upheld, no recommendations
Summary
Mrs C complained about the care and treatment that her late husband (Mr A) received at Glasgow Royal Infirmary. Mr A had cancer and was seen at clinic and placed on the waiting list for surgery. However, Mr A began to rapidly lose weight and Mrs C tried to contact the consultant for advice. Mr A was referred for a dietetic assessment and was advised to take nutritional supplements. Mr A was still unable to stop the weight loss and Mrs C again tried to contact the consultant for advice. The consultant was not available and arrangements were made for Mr A to see another consultant at short notice. It was then discovered that Mr A's condition had deteriorated and that surgery was no longer an option. Mrs C felt that action should have been taken sooner to reassess Mr A and that a scan should have been arranged at the clinic appointment.
We took independent advice from a consultant colorectal surgeon (a surgeon who specialises in conditions in the colon, rectum or anus). We found that there was no indication that a scan was required at the clinic appointment as a diagnosis had already been reached and Mr C did not report any new symptoms. It was appropriate that Mr A was then directed to a dietetic review in order to treat his poor nutritional intake so that he would be in appropriate health to undergo the planned surgery. There was no indication that a hospital admission was required at the time of the dietetic review. When Mr A saw another consultant, appropriate investigations were carried out although by that stage it was felt that he was no longer fit for the planned surgery. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. However, we did note that there was a failing in the passing of information from the secretarial staff to the clinical staff. This would not have affected the outcome and the board have already taken action to ensure that when clinicians are not available the matter should be escalated to another clinician.
Summary
Mrs C complained about the treatment she received from the orthopaedic service (the service which deals with issues of the musculoskeletal system) at Glasgow Royal Infirmary. She had been referred there by her GP for a suspected torn cartilage. She said that the consultant reviewed her and suggested that she have a hip injection, arranged for her to have a scan and said that the matter would be reviewed. Mrs C then saw another doctor who suggested an alternative treatment plan. Mrs C felt that it was unreasonable that the consultant did not take any further action at the initial appointment.
We took independent advice from an orthopaedic consultant. We found that the consultant had carried out a reasonable assessment in view of Mrs C's reported symptoms and medical history, and that it was reasonable to suggest that she had a hip injection. The fact that another clinician arrived at a different diagnosis was also reasonable in the circumstances. We did not uphold the complaint.
Summary
Mrs C complained that, despite attending the dentist over the years with tooth pain, the cause of her pain was not identified or treated appropriately. She was ultimately referred to a periodontal (gum) specialist. Mrs C complained that she had not been informed of the presence of gum disease, and that she had to wait several months for this specialist assessment and treatment. Mrs C felt that the lack of earlier treatment had placed her dental bridgework at increased risk.
We took independent advice from a dentist. We found that Mrs C's dental records confirmed discussions having taken place with Mrs C regarding her gum disease. We noted that Mrs C's gum health had deteriorated rapidly at the time she was referred to the periodontal specialist, and we considered this referral was appropriate. We considered that the actions of the dentist were appropriate and did not contribute to the increased risk of Mrs C losing her dental bridge. Therefore, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.
Summary
Mrs C attended the dentist for restorative crowning treatment of one of her teeth, having recently completed a course of private orthodontic treatment. Following completion of the crown preparatory work, Mrs C complained that her retainer felt slack and that there was subsequent movement in one of her teeth between then and her re-attending for the crown fitting a week later. The dentist considered that the movement was an orthodontic relapse issue and did not accept liability for the cost of the remedial orthodontic work required. Mrs C complained that there had been no movement prior to the crown preparatory work and that the movement could, therefore, only be attributed to this work.
We took independent dental advice from a general dental practitioner. We found that the treatment provided by the dentist was carried out appropriately and that this could not reasonably be responsible for the movement of Mrs C's tooth. We noted that any movement was likely to have occurred over a period of months, due to orthodontic relapse, rather than the short period of time between the crown preparation and crown fit appointments. We observed that the dentist's notes from an earlier appointment suggested that the tooth in question was not in a stable position and that relapse had already occurred. Therefore, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.
Summary
Mr C complained about the care and treatment he had received at Dr Gray's Hospital. Mr C, who had a history of heart problems, had attended a consultation at the cardiology unit (the branch of medicine that deals with diseases and abnormalities of the heart) where investigations were carried out and he was told there was no cause for concern. However, Mr C suffered a heart attack three months later and had to be fitted with a stent (tube inserted in a blocked artery to keep it open). Mr C felt that the previous investigations must have shown that he was at risk of a heart attack and that preventative action should have been taken.
We took independent advice from a cardiac consultant. We found that the previous investigations were appropriately carried out and reported on and it was reasonable for the clinicians to have diagnosed that Mr C had mild and stable angina (chest pain). The clinicians involved could not have predicted that Mr C would go on to suffer a heart attack after such a short period of time. We did not uphold the complaint.
Summary
Mr C complained that the dentist unreasonably failed to diagnose the cause of his facial pain. Mr C said that he attended his dentist but was told there was nothing wrong with his teeth. He continued to see his GP about his facial pain and several medical investigations were carried out. Fourteen months after Mr C had attended his dentist, he saw a specialist who found out that he had a long- standing infection.
We took independent advice from a dental adviser. We found that the treatment decisions and management of Mr C was reasonable in the circumstances, as was the failure to diagnose an infection. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.
Summary
Mrs C complained about the care and treatment provided to her mother (Mrs A) by the practice. She complained that Mrs A's symptoms and medical and dental history were largely ignored. Mrs C felt that Mrs A's life was cut short as a result of poor care and treatment by the practice.
We took independent advice from a GP. We found that the care and treatment provided to Mrs A by the practice was of a reasonable standard. We found no evidence that the practice had failed to act on abnormal results or that the practice failed to arrange appropriate investigations and referral to secondary care. We did not uphold the complaint.
Summary
Mrs C complained about the medical care and treatment her late mother (Mrs A) received when she attended the Victoria Hospital. In particular that more could have been done by the cardiac service to investigate Mrs A's symptoms and diagnose her.
We took independent advice from a consultant cardiologist (a doctor who specialises in the heart and blood vessels). We found that there had been some shortcomings in relation to aspects of communication, however, this did not impact on Mrs A's condition. We found that overall the care and treatment Mrs A received had been reasonable. We also noted that the timing of the cardiac tests less than two weeks after a referral from a GP demonstrated good practice and a responsive organisation. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.
Summary
Mr C complained about the care and treatment he received at Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary. Mr C received an injection into his hip for pain relief but the needle was placed in the wrong place causing Mr A pain. Another consultant had to remove the needle and gave a further injection in another place. Mr C said that he continues to suffer pain from the procedure and that he had been unable to return to work.
We took independent advice from an orthopaedic consultant (a specialist in the treatment of diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system). We found that adequate consent had been obtained from Mr C and that he was advised of the potential risks and the possibility that the procedure may not be successful. We noted that Mr C had suffered a rare but recognised complication of the procedure. The supervising consultant had to take over when difficulties were encountered and this is normal practice. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.
-
Case ref:
-
Date:
-
Body:
University of the West of Scotland
-
Sector:
-
Outcome:
Not upheld, no recommendations
-
Subject:
policy / administration
Summary
Mrs C complained that the university did not inform her of an additional fee for her course. The university explained that the information supplied was for the postgraduate taught tuition fees but students are informed that an additional fee is required if the masters dissertation is completed. Mrs C was unhappy with this response and brought her complaint to us.
We found that the university reasonably communicated with Mrs C that further fees were due in order for her to complete the masters dissertation for her course. At the point she was accepted on the course, a link to funding information was provided which explained the separate fees for the taught element and the masters dissertation. When the university responded to Mrs C's query about the fees for the full-time postgraduate course, the information provided was accurate and detailed the cost of the taught element of the course. However, it would have been good practice to have provided further information about the fees for the masters dissertation, as it was relevant to the majority of students embarking on the course. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint but provided feedback to the university on good practice.