Some upheld, recommendations

Summary

C complained about care and treatment provided to them by the board in relation to diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer. C had concerns about medical treatment both prior to and after surgery, and about nursing care when they were in hospital following surgery.

We took independent advice from a urologist and a nurse. We found that overall, medical care and treatment had been reasonable and did not uphold these aspects of C’s complaint. However, in relation to nursing care, we found that C’s needs and risks were not properly assessed, resulting in a lack of person-centred care planning and implementation. We upheld the complaint about nursing care.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings in nursing care. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/meaningful-apologies.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Patients admitted to hospital should receive appropriate nursing care including complete assessments and development of person-centred care plans. These should be updated to reflect the patient’s presenting condition.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C gave birth involving a forceps delivery (where a medical instrument is used to assist birth) and suffered a fourth-degree perineal tear (significant injury to the area between the vaginal opening and anus). C had surgery to repair the perineal tear and again to have treatment for retained placenta (where some placenta remains in the womb after birth). C complained about the maternity care and treatment in hospital, the board’s communication with C in hospital and the board’s handling of C’s complaint.

The board apologised for poor communication during the birth and said that they were carrying out actions to improve management of obstetric and anal sphincter injury and obtaining consent for instrumental birth.

We took independent advice from a consultant obstetrician. We found that the maternity care and treatment provided to C during the time of the birth was reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

We found that the board’s communication with C when C was in hospital was unreasonable. Though the birth situation was urgent, it was not an emergency, and a fuller discussion should have taken place with C regarding the forceps delivery. We upheld this aspect of C’s complaint.

We found the actions that the board said they were carrying out were reasonable in response to the failing in communication.

We found the board’s complaints handling was unreasonable, because C’s initial complaint was not reasonably progressed, the scope of the complaint investigation was not agreed with C, the board’s response to the complaint was not reasonably clear, and there were regular and significant delays in the board’s communication with C regarding the complaint. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings identified. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/meaningful-apologies.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• All staff should be aware of how to identify and progress complaints about the board. The board should provide full, clear and timely complaint responses in line with the NHS Scotland Complaints Handling Procedure.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment that the board provided to A, who had long-term mental health conditions. A was subject to a Community Compulsory Treatment order (CTO, a legal order that allows a person who has been detained in hospital for treatment to be discharged and receive supervised mental health care in the community). C was A’s Named Person in respect of the CTO. A experienced a deterioration in their mental health over a short period of time, which concluded with them attending A&E and requesting hospital admission. A was not admitted to hospital and died later that night. The post-mortem believed that A may have completed suicide.

The board carried out a Significant Adverse Event Review (SAER) and concluded that the outcome could not have been predicted. The SAER identified areas of good practice but also some learning points. These centred on missed opportunities to refer A to addiction services and paper notes from the Forensic Community Mental Health Team (FCMHT) not being accessible by other services.

C complained to the SPSO as they felt that there were failings in the care and treatment provided to A that contributed to their death. In addition to this, C complained that the board did not communicate with them reasonably, given that they were A’s Named Person.

We took independent advice from an adviser with a background in forensic psychiatric nursing. We found that the overall care and treatment provided to A in respect of their mental health was reasonable. We considered it clear that access to the FCMHT records across services would have been preferable. This would have assisted the clinical decision-making when A presented to A&E. However, we found that there are no standard guidelines or requirements for the sharing of records across NHS services in Scotland. Based on A's presentation and what was known to clinicians at the time, we found that the care and treatment provided by the board was reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C's complaint.

In respect of C’s role as A’s Named Person, we found that it was unreasonable not to involve C in discussions regarding A’s circumstances. Relevant Scottish Government guidance indicates that it is necessary for the board to ensure that Named Persons are given information regarding compulsory measures. We found that the board’s actions and responses did not fully reflect the Scottish Government guidance regarding Named Persons. Particularly as there were discussions at the time about ending A’s CTO. Under the circumstances, we found that the board did not involve or communicate with C to a reasonable level. Therefore, we upheld this part of C's complaint.

During our investigation, we found failures in the board's handling of C's complaint and made recommendations to address these.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for not involving or communicated with C to a reasonable level. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Relevant staff and services should have a firm understanding of what the Named Person role involves. Services should engage and communicate with Named Persons in line with the relevant guidance issued by the Scottish Government: Mental Health Law in Scotland: A Guide to Named Persons

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Causation/conclusion codes on adverse event review reports should accurately reflect the findings of the review.
• Documentation that is relevant to the SAER should be available to and considered by the team carrying out the review.
• In response to SPSO enquiries, every effort should be made to provide any requested information at the earliest opportunity.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment of their late spouse (A). The day before A’s first admission to hospital, the GP submitted an urgent suspicion of cancer (USOC) referral. A was experiencing abdominal pain with vomiting and diarrhoea. The initial diagnosis had been a suspected blocked bowel. After symptoms settled, A was discharged before returning to hospital a few days later with ongoing symptoms. A was discharged home with a plan to return for an outpatient colonoscopy. However, A returned to hospital with a diabetic foot infection resulting in surgery. During this final admission, A was diagnosed with bowel cancer. C considered A was inappropriately discharged from hospital following the first two admissions with no clear diagnosis or plan in place. C said that communication throughout A’s hospital admissions was poor and also complained about the nursing care provided to A, particularly in relation to the care given to their feet as a known diabetic.

We took independent advice from a clinical adviser and senior nurse adviser. We found that given A’s symptoms, and the USOC referral, the board unreasonably failed to consider A for an inpatient colonoscopy during their second admission to hospital and unreasonably failed to schedule an outpatient colonoscopy for A one to two weeks after discharge. We also found A’s second discharge from hospital was inappropriate because their presentation, along with other relevant information, should have alerted clinical staff to the possibility of cancer.

We found that basic nursing care could not be evidenced due to poor documentation and that appropriate assessments were not carried out. We found that the foot care provided to A was unreasonable with no evidence to show wound assessment or monitoring was done to a reasonable standard. We upheld all aspects of the complaint relating to the care and treatment of A.

C also complained that the boards handling of the complaint was poor. We found that steps were taken to agree the complaints issues that would be investigated, regular updates were provided and steps were taken to manage contact with C, Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings identified. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Patients should receive appropriate nursing care. In particular in relation to Food Fluid and Nutrition, Wound Assessment and Management and Pressure Ulcer Prevention, including CPR for feet.
• Nursing documentation should be completed to the required standard.
• Patients should receive appropriate investigations in relation to their presenting symptoms either during admission or as soon as possible on discharge.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained that the board failed to consider their request for bariatric surgery reasonably. C also complained that the board failed to handle their complaint reasonably. C suffers from complex physical and mental health issues. They were referred for bariatric surgery by the clinicians treating their medical conditions. C attended a number of assessment appointments to determine their suitability for surgery. C was concerned by the assessment process and asked to see the report being submitted to the Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) meeting but this request was refused. C was not accepted for surgery.

C received a copy of the assessment report through a subject access request. C was told by the board that they would accept a complaint from C if their complaint was made within 12 months. C complained a few months later. The board delayed in acknowledging and responding to the complaint but met with C to agree how the complaint would be handled. The following month, the board wrote to C stating that they would not investigate the complaint, because it had been submitted outwith the time limit for investigation.

We took independent advice from a consultant psychologist. We found that C should have been allowed the opportunity to provide feedback on the assessment process before it was discussed at an MDT. C had been promised an appointment to do this, but the appointment was not made. However, we considered that the assessment itself had been reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C's complaint.

In relation to complaints handling, we found that C was not properly informed about the process that the board intended to follow and was repeatedly given the impression that the case would be investigated. The board did not demonstrate how it had determined C’s complaint was out of time. Therefore, we upheld this part of C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings identified. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• The board should have robust administrative systems in place to ensure appointments are arranged as intended and that patients are effectively communicated with.
• In relation to complaints handling, we recommended
• The board should provide us with an update as to any procedural changes that have been made to ensure patients’ individual needs are considered when they make a complaint.
• The board should ensure timebar decisions reference the relevant board guidance.

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment provided to their parent (A) in relation to a number of hospital admissions. C complained that A was discharged without clear advice as to whether they had sepsis, and how to manage A’s condition. C also said that the board did not provide a discharge letter. C complained that when A attended hospital four days later, they should have been admitted rather than being sent home with oral antibiotics. Lastly, C said that when A was readmitted to hospital the following month, a day passed before they were seen by a consultant.

We took independent advice from a consultant urological surgeon (specialist in the male and female urinary tract, and the male reproductive organs). We found that, while A received appropriate care during their initial admission, the board's communication around A's sepsis was unreasonable. They also did not provide an interim discharge summary.

In relation to A's second discharge, we found that A's symptoms raised the possibility of a complicated kidney infection. Therefore, we considered that discharging A with oral antibiotics was unreasonable. A should have received treatment with IV antibiotics and consideration should have been given to admission, which may potentially have prevented the need for A to be admitted the following month. We upheld these parts of C's complaint.

Finally, we found that A's condition when they were readmitted did not meet the criteria for an urgent consultant review. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings identified in this decision. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/meaningful-apologies.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Decisions on admission and treatment with IV antibiotics should be in keeping with European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on Urological Infections and The UK Health Security Agency guidance on antimicrobial intravenous-to-oral switch (IVOS) criteria for prompt switch for adults.
• Immediate discharge letters should be issued at the time of discharge and patients and where applicable their families, should receive appropriate advice on discharge which should be documented in the patient’s medical records.
• Patients with sepsis and their family members and carers should be given opportunities to ask questions about a diagnosis, treatment options, prognosis, and complications. There should be a willingness to repeat any information as needed.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints should be investigated and responded to in accordance with the board’s complaint handling procedure and the NHS Model Complaints Handling Procedure. We offer SPSO accredited Complaints Handling training. Details and registration forms for our online self-guided Good Complaints Handling course (Stage 1) and our online trainer-led Complaints Investigation Skills course (Stage 2) are available at https://www.spso.org.uk/training-courses.

Summary

C had a bilateral total knee replacement surgery, which was carried out by another organisation. Approximately three weeks after their surgery, C was admitted to a hospital within Forth Valley NHS Board following a fall. Approximately three weeks after C’s discharge, C had surgery to repair a tendon in their right quadriceps (thigh muscle), which was carried out by another organisation.

C complained about the care and treatment that they received in hospital during their admission and the care and treatment that they received from the outpatient physiotherapy service over the next six months.

The board said that the presentation of C during their hospital admission was a common presentation following knee replacement surgery and very similar to the presentation for an injury to the quadriceps. The board said that the outpatient physiotherapy guidance was followed when treating C.

We took independent advice from a consultant orthopaedic surgeon (specialist in the treatment of diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system) and a physiotherapist.

We found that the board failed to consider a right-sided quadriceps tendon injury when C was seen by a consultant in hospital, failed to reassess C during their admission and failed to escalate C when C did not progress when in hospital. On this basis, we upheld this part of C’s complaint.

In relation to the physiotherapy service, we found that the exercises C received were in line with post-operative guidance and that physiotherapists followed protocols for treating C. We did not uphold this part of C’s complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings identified by this investigation. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/meaningful-apologies.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• The Morbidity and Mortality meeting scheduled should include input from physiotherapy; discuss appropriate escalation procedures, including who to contact if a consultant is unavailable; and how patients are reviewed as inpatients, with a view to reviewing patients daily.

Summary

C complained about the nursing and medical care and treatment provided to their parent (A) when A was in hospital following a hip fracture. A had surgery for the fracture but was diagnosed with a number of illnesses while in hospital and died.

We took independent advice from a nursing adviser and consultant geriatrician (specialist in medicine of the elderly). In relation to nursing care, we found failings with A's nutrition, pressure care, person centred care planning, and documentation. We upheld this part of C's complaint.

In relation to medical care and treatment, we generally found this to have been reasonable and did not uphold this part of C’s complaint. However, we provided feedback to the board regarding starting oral nutrition supplements in line with Scottish Hip Fracture Guidance.

Finally, we found that there were delays in the handling of C's complaint and the board failed to fully address of all C's concerns. The board had acknowledged these failings and taken action to address them. Therefore, we upheld this part of C's complaint but made no further recommendations in this regard.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings in nursing care provided to A, and the failings in complaint handling. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/meaningful-apologies.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Appropriate assessments should be accurately completed in a timely manner to identify patients at risk of or with existing pressure sore damage. Those patients should receive appropriate and timely pressure sore care in accordance with relevant local and national guidance.
• Malnutrition Screening should be completed in a timely manner and repeated as appropriate. Food charts should be completed accurately.
• Person-centred care planning should be completed for every patient, and documentation should support this.

Summary

C complained about the medical and nursing care they received for a spinal condition. C said the care led to avoidable complications and delayed their transfer to a specialist spinal unit.

We took independent advice from a consultant in orthopaedics (specialists in the treatment of diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system) and a registered nurse. We found a number of failings in the nursing care C received. This included poor record keeping and a failure to manage C’s skin care appropriately. This led to avoidable pressure injuries which were a significant factor in delaying C’s transfer. In terms of medical care, we found that the ward C was placed on lacked the necessary equipment to manage a patient in their condition. We found the medical and nursing care C received fell below a reasonable standard and upheld these parts of C’s complaint.

C also complained that the board failed to provide them with a reasonable standard of physiotherapy. We found that C’s physiotherapy care was of a reasonable standard and was well documented, showing regular review up to the point physiotherapy was stopped on medical advice. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C’s complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to provide them with a reasonable standard of medical and nursing care. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Wound charts should be in place for pressure wounds and there should be subsequent weekly assessments. Care rounding should be delivered to the frequency required to prevent pressure damage. Patients should be appropriately moved position to avoid worsening pressure damage.
• Nursing staff correctly follow CPR for feet guidelines and develop person centred treatment plan for patient foot care.
• Patients should be transferred to a hospital and ward which can provide the care they need.
• That a duty of candour review is considered in light of the SPSO's findings.
• When a relevant adverse event occurs, the board should complete a SAER.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained about the standard of surgery and post-operative care that they received when they had an elective operation for a long standing hernia (when part of an organ protrudes through your muscle wall). During the procedure the bowel was punctured resulting in an injury and transfer to another hospital.

C said that the small hernia was manageable without an operation, and complained that they had not been told about all the risks and about inadequate care post-surgery.

We took independent advice from a consultant general and colorectal surgeon. We found that it was reasonable to offer C an elective repair of the hernia and for this operation be to done by the consultant surgeon. However, more regard should have been given to whether C was at an increased risk due to their BMI. We found that the board failed to provide informed consent at an appropriate time which meant that the risks of surgery were not effectively communicated to C. We also found that the consent process for C did not meet published guidelines. Therefore we upheld this complaint.

We found that post surgery, recognition and escalation to start Patient Controlled Analgesia was appropriate, and that C responded well to this pain relief. The timing of the CT scan was reasonable. Following escalation to clinical care specialists and treatment, C was transferred for further care which was also reasonable. We therefore did not uphold this complaint.

We provided feedback that consideration should be given to the preoperative risk assessment being carried out at consultant level and that referral to specialist weight management is available for patients who require incisional hernia repairs electively.

Recommendations

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Relevant staff should be aware of the required consent procedure and to ensure that the consent discussions are appropriately timed in advance of surgery and documented.
• When a relevant adverse event occurs, the board should promptly carry out an SAER to investigate the cause and identify any potential learning.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.