Upheld, recommendations

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment that they received from the community mental health team, after C was referred due to suicidal ideation. C said that they did not have a reasonable level of contact with the team and had difficulty changing the frequency of a prescription. C also said that the board unreasonably made reference to a historical referral to a befriending service in their complaint response.

We took independent advice from a specialist in adult mental health nursing. We found that the board’s position that prescribing is a matter for C’s GP to be reasonable. However, we found that C did not receive reasonable or adequate contact from the community mental health team and the board failed to follow through on a plan for C to have a face-to-face appointment with a consultant psychiatrist.

We also found that the board failed to follow through with a plan to discuss a referral to a befriending service with the clinical team. The board’s complaint response made reference to a referral submitted several years previously, which we found unreasonable with respect to complaints handling. We upheld 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/information-leaflets.

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

• The community mental health team should have robust administrative systems in place to ensure that planned appointments are arranged as intended and that patients are effectively notified of their personal appointment arrangements in a timely manner.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaint responses should include information relevant to the events complained about.

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 their late sibling (A) received from the practice. A attended the practice with back pain and was given painkillers. Clinical staff noted comments on A’s appearance and demeanour during the appointment. They also noted that they considered A to be drug seeking. A died a few days later.

C complained that the examination was not thorough enough and that clinicians missed the fact that a lung infection was the cause of A’s symptoms. The practice said that they considered the examination to be reasonable, that they felt that A did not present with typical signs of respiratory concern and so auscultation (listening to the lungs) was not indicated. They did not identify anything that could have been done differently.

We took independent clinical advice from an advanced nurse practitioner. We considered that there were enough complicating factors in A’s history and presentation to warrant a more thorough examination of A. Therefore, the examination carried out was unreasonable. We found that the opinion that A was drug-seeking was premature as no differential diagnoses were considered or ruled out. We also noted that an adverse event review was not carried out which we considered to be unreasonable. Therefore, we upheld C’s complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to carry out a reasonable and thorough examination of A when they presented at the practice for a consultation, for failing to consider/rule out differential diagnoses to explain A’s symptoms and for failing to carry out an adverse event review to investigate what happened and promote learning for the staff involved. 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 be examined thoroughly. When examination is difficult, and/or it is difficult to obtain a clear history, care should be taken not to reach conclusions prematurely without ruling out differential diagnoses as appropriate.
• When a patient dies shortly after they have been seen at the practice, an adverse event review should be carried out in line with the National Framework for Scotland to ensure that any learning (and good practice) can be identified and acted on.

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 provided to their parent (A). A had been admitted to hospital before being transferred to a mental health facility. A then developed abdominal symptoms, which required them to be transferred to an acute hospital for treatment. A had been considered for surgery, but this was changed to treatment with medication. A was transferred back to the mental health facility but became unwell again and was taken to A&E. A died from a pulmonary embolism (a blood clot that blocks and stops blood flow to an artery in the lung).

C said that A’s medical and nursing care fell below an acceptable standard which resulted in A’s dignity being compromised, their personal care neglected and A not receiving the medication that they required. C believed that A’s death was caused by a failure to examine A properly or ensure that A received anti-clotting medication. C felt that this resulted in A developing deep vein thrombosis (DVT, a blood clot in a vein) which led directly to their death. C was also unhappy with the board’s response to their complaint. C felt that the board had not represented meetings with the family accurately, and failed to follow up on the actions that they had told the family were being taken, despite acknowledging that there was significant learning to be gained from the family’s experience.

We took independent advice from a registered nurse and a consultant geriatrician (specialist in medicine of the elderly). We found that A’s nursing and medical care had fallen below a reasonable standard. We also found that the board failed to communicate reasonably with C and their family and that they could not provide evidence that they had taken the actions promised to the family following the board’s complaint investigation. In addition, the board’s Significant Adverse Event Review had been delayed, reducing the utility of it to the board. We upheld all of C’s complaints.

Recommendations

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

• All nursing staff on the relevant ward should be compliant with the board’s medicine administration policy.
• An assessment by the medical team of the current rota and continuity of care based on the assurances given to A’s family that staff numbers would improve this.
• Patient documentation completed to an appropriate standard, without sections left blank, this should include admission documents, care rounding charts, person centred care plans and delirium screening.
• The board should develop clear guidance to ensure patients with mental health issues can have timely access to nursing staff trained in mental health care, to reduce the reliance on family members providing care.
• The case should be discussed at the next available morbidity and mortality meeting.
• The medical staff involved should include this case for discussion at their next appraisal.

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 their spouse (A) received from Scottish Ambulance Service (SAS). C called for an ambulance after A fell from a height at home. A was assisted to their feet after an initial check and then walked to the ambulance for further checks. After returning to the house, A became pale and reported a brief loss of sight. It was decided A should be transferred to hospital where they were later diagnosed with a broken pelvis.

C said that one of the crew members was rude and dismissive when they had tried to describe the height A had fallen from. C complained that SAS had not fully assessed A, failed to consider the accounts given by eyewitnesses and unreasonably concluded that A could remain at home and take painkillers. A was clear that they did not want to go to hospital, however, C considered the crew failed to recognise A was in shock.

In responding to the complaint, SAS advised that a full assessment had been carried out. It was also noted A did not initially wish to be transferred to hospital and had declined to be immobilised on a spinal board. The response advised of actions for learning and improvement which would be taken with the crew in response to C’s complaint. This included actions in relation to the mechanism of injury (in this case a fall from height), moving and handling, consideration of silver trauma (the impact of trauma on older patients), and communication with patients and relatives.

C was unhappy with this response and brought their complaint to us. We took independent advice from a senior paramedic adviser. We found that SAS failed to undertake a reasonable assessment of A as they did not act in keeping with the Joint Royal College Ambulance Liaison Committee guidance on Spinal and Spinal cord injury. In particular, there was a failure to immobilise A at the scene given the mechanism of injury. We also considered that SAS failed to reasonably document the incident, consider A’s age and the effects of ‘silver trauma’ and to correctly calculate the National Early Warning Score. SAS did not document any discussion about the risks/benefits associated with immobilisation or fully record A’s reported initial refusal to comply with treatment or to be transferred to hospital. Finally, we noted a failure to document a pain score before and after analgesia had been given. Therefore, we upheld C’s complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to A for failing to provide a reasonable standard of 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:

• The patient record should be completed in full to reflect the presenting condition/mechanism of injury; the assessment and observations undertaken including NEWS, pain score, the accounts of eye witnesses and consideration of other relevant factors such as age; and the patient’s decision regarding treatment and the information shared to inform this decision.

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 provide hip replacement surgery within a reasonable period of time. C experienced back and buttock pain for several years due to an existing condition. C started to experience new pain in their right leg. Their GP referred them for an x-ray and made an urgent referral to the orthopaedic department (specialists in the treatment of diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system) as C had been off work due to debilitating pain in the hip and was concerned about losing their employment as a result.

C had a consultation with the orthopaedic surgeon and was told that the hip was badly damaged. C was listed as a priority 4 case (a lower priority) for a total hip replacement. C’s condition continued to deteriorate; they were in severe pain and it was affecting their day to day life. C contacted the board to explain the severity of the problems that they were experiencing and they were reviewed in clinic. Shortly afterwards, C underwent surgery privately.

We took independent advice from a trauma and orthopaedic consultant. We found that a number of failings occurred that were not simply as a result of the delays caused by an extensive waiting list. It was unreasonable that C was incorrectly categorised from the outset and that an outdated prioritisation tool was used by the board. It was also unreasonable that the radiological deterioration was not documented and that C’s surgical treatment was not expedited at the further clinic appointment. Therefore, we upheld C’s complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the specific failings identified in respect of the complaint. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Calculate and reimburse C in relation to their private surgery on production of appropriate receipts. The calculation should be based on what the surgery would have cost the NHS (rather than what it cost C). The payment should be made by the date indicated; if payment is not made by that date, interest should be paid at the standard interest rate applied by the courts from the initial date to the date of payment.

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

• Patients should be given timely, clear and accurate information about their clinical prioritisation and potential waiting times for surgery.
• Patients should receive the appropriate clinical priority level based on assessment and the clinical evidence available.
• Patients who report clinical deterioration during their wait for surgery should be appropriately assessed and reprioritised where this is appropriate.

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.

This case was reviewed and closed in October 2024. This summary was published prior to review. No changes are required to this summary as the outcome of the review was unchanged from the initial decision from April 2024. 

Summary

C complained on behalf of their parent (A) that the board unreasonably failed to proceed with hip replacement surgery within a reasonable timeframe.

C said that A was referred for physiotherapy before being added to the waiting list for surgery. They complained that this was unreasonable as it was known that it would not help given the extent of deterioration in A’s hip joint. C also complained that several of A’s appointments had been cancelled or postponed, and that the board had failed to act on an urgent referral sent by A’s GP. As it was unclear when A would receive their surgery, they opted to have this carried out privately.

In responding to C’s complaint, the board confirmed that they must take all reasonably practicable steps to ensure that they comply with treatment time guarantees. This includes considering whether to send patients to another care provider if they cannot provide treatment by the patient’s treatment time guarantee. In A’s case, the board noted that A had elected to make their own arrangement for private surgery and, therefore, the NHS offer of treatment was no longer relevant to them.

We took independent medical advice from a consultant orthopaedic surgeon (a specialist in the treatment of diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system). At the point of referral to orthopaedics, we found that A was reasonably referred for physiotherapy and added to the waiting list as a routine category patient. At the pre-operative assessment clinic, we found that an x-ray was taken but it had not been reported or reviewed. At this point, A should have been re-prioritised to urgent in keeping with the physical changes that they had reported and the radiological deterioration evident on the x-ray. It was unreasonable not to re-prioritise A at this time. In reference to the urgent referral sent by A’s GP, A continued to be considered as a routine category patient. However, it was clear A’s case had been expedited as they were offered a place on a private sector list for surgery run by the board at the time. The board could not provide evidence to support their decision making. We also found that the board did not meet their legislative requirements when communicating with A about their treatment time guarantee date. On balance, we upheld C’s complaint.

During our investigation, we identified issues with the board’s handling of the complaint. We made a recommendation to the board to support improvement of their complaint handling.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to A for not reasonably communicating with A about the breach of their treatment time guarantee date, for not acting on the changes reported by A at the pre-assessment clinic, for not reviewing or reporting the x-ray, for not appropriately reviewing and reprioritising A following the urgent GP referral, and for not documenting the reason for the decision to add A to the private list for surgery. 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 on waiting lists for surgery should be managed in keeping with the relevant policies and guidance, and they should be kept informed about delays particularly when a treatment time guarantee has been breached. The outcome of assessments and test results including x-rays taken at pre-assessment clinics should be timeously reviewed and documented in the medical record. Patients should be appropriately reviewed and reprioritised based on assessment and the clinical evidence available. Decisions made in respect of the patient should be documented by the relevant person in the medical record.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The board’s complaint handling monitoring and governance system should ensure that complaints are appropriately investigated and that failings (and good practice) are identified and learning from complaints are used to drive service development and improvement The final complaint response should include information about the SPSO, including the timescale for making a complaint, in line with the Model 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 provided to their spouse (A). A stayed in critical care wards after surgery and acquired wounds to their back and shoulders. C complained that A’s wounds were not appropriately documented or treated.

In response to C’s complaint, the board acknowledged that documentation of A’s wounds was not started in critical care wards, and A’s wounds were not initially logged on the board’s system for reporting adverse events. The board told us that after C’s complaint, the tissue viability service developed online learning for staff, and developed and promoted a wound management policy. The board apologised that A sustained wounds after surgery.

We took independent advice from a nurse with a specialism in wound care. We agreed that the board did not reasonably document C’s wounds; however, we also found that they did not follow their guidelines in treating A’s wounds. We found that there was a delay in referral to a tissue viability specialist; a lack of skin inspection; inadequate repositioning to prevent pressure damage occurring or deteriorating; and inappropriate wound management. We also found that the board did not provide C with a full and informed complaint response. Therefore, we upheld C’s complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C and A 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 be regularly assessed for tissue damage in line with board procedures. Where tissue damage is found, appropriate treatment including timely escalation to a tissue viability specialist as required should be provided.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The board’s complaint handling monitoring and governance system should ensure that complaints are properly investigated and responded to; are accurate; and that failings and good practice are identified.

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 carry out a reasonable assessment of their late parent (A) when they were admitted to hospital. They were also unhappy with the decision to discharge A and said that the board failed to communicate adequately with them and their family during the time A spent in the hospital. C complained that the board’s complaint response was not consistent with A’s clinical records.

We took independent advice from a consultant in geriatric and general medicine. We found that while a reasonable assessment of A’s clinical condition was carried out, the assessment of A’s physical condition and the discussion with their family before discharge fell below a reasonable standard, particularly with respect to A’s mobility. We also found that communication with A’s family fell below a level that they could reasonably expect. Finally, we were critical of the board’s complaint response which appeared to be selective in terms of the information provided rather than being objective. Therefore, we upheld C’s complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings identified and provide an explanation to C about why the discharge document mentioned ‘urosepsis’. 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 gap between a patient’s previous and current abilities should always be assessed and considered when making a decision about discharging the patient. Where a patient’s family is involved in their care at home, they should be involved in discussions about the patient’s discharge and any follow-up care and treatment.
• Complaint responses should be objective, clear, accurate and address the issues raised.

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 and B complained about the support that they had received as foster carers from the partnership. C and B told us that they had been foster carers to two young people for a number of years. Following a significant incident in the fostering placement, social work services had taken the decision to remove both young people from their care. Following the end of the placement, C and B complained to the partnership about the adequacy of support and intervention offered to both them, and the young people, by social work services during the placement, the decision to remove both young people from their care and the lack of transition planning.

In response to C and B's concerns the partnership concluded that a reasonable level of support had been offered to them during the placement. They said that the decision to end the placement had not been taken lightly, and staff had made a professional assessment in the young people’s best interests. They apologised for the delay in convening a disruption meeting, citing a number of mitigating factors, including operational constraints and government restrictions.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that, in the weeks prior to the incident, the partnership failed to follow their Placement Support Practice Guidance, specifically a Placement Support meeting was not convened to explore how the placement could be supported and maintained. We found that following the incident, the partnership’s communication and support to the family was not robust or proportionate, and an appropriate debrief had not taken place, including an urgent risk assessment. We found that there was a lack of young people involvement in decisions about their future care planning. The partnership did not complete appropriate transitioning planning or risk assessment to assist the young people, and the foster carers, with the immediate impact of the end of placement, including seeking the young people’s views in respect of their onward communication / contact with their foster carers. We also found that there was an unreasonable delay by the partnership to convene a disruption meeting following the placement ending and inconsistencies in their policies and practice guidance in respect of timescales for a meeting. Therefore, we upheld C and B's complaints.

Recommendations

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

• Where a long-term fostering placement is at risk of breaking down, a Placement Support meeting should be convened as soon as possible to explore how the placement can be supported and maintained.
• Ensure that there is clarity across all of the partnership’s policies and practice guidance in respect of timescales to convene a disruption meeting so that there are no anomalies that remain for practitioners, foster carers and service users. When there are genuine reasons for delay in adhering to these timescales then this should be consistently conveyed to the foster carers and partners to the child/ young person's plan.
• The child / young person’s views should be sought and clearly recorded in decision-making about their care plan.
• Where a long-term fostering placement breaks down, a robust transition plan with input from the foster carers and the children / young people affected should be formulated to assist with the immediate impact of the end of the placement.
• Where a significant incident has occurred in a fostering placement, appropriate support should be offered to the family and a formal debrief meeting facilitated with the family as soon after the event as safe to do so. This should include risk assessment and care planning in light of any risk identified. All views of the incident should be considered and recorded with any immediate and long-term actions being transparent and recorded in case notes.

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 contacted the Scottish Ambulance Service (SAS) when they began experiencing abdominal pain. An ambulance attended but did not take C to hospital. The crew provided advice to contact the service again if their symptoms worsened. C contacted the service again the following day. A telephone assessment was completed but no ambulance was sent. C later made their own way to hospital where they required surgery for a perforated bowel.

C complained that the SAS failed to recognise the seriousness of their symptoms and failed to provide appropriate care and treatment. C said that as a result, they required more extensive surgery than if they had been taken to hospital sooner.

We took independent advice from a paramedic. We found that the ambulance crew had unreasonably failed to carry out an adequate assessment of C. The crew assessed that C had withdrawn consent for further assessment, and did not provide adequate advice on the benefits of assessment or the risks of not completing the assessment. We also found that the telephone assessment the following day was inadequate and was poorly documented. Therefore, we upheld C's complaints.

Recommendations

• What we asked the organisation to do in this case
• Apologise to C for failing to conduct an adequate assessment, failing to recognise the potential seriousness of their symptoms, and failing to provide them with the care that they required. 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:

• Clinical staff are able to recognise symptoms of potentially serious abdominal conditions.
• Clinical staff ensure that benefits of assessment, treatment and transport to hospital, and the risks of declining care, are fully discussed with the patient and recorded.
• Clinical staff reflect on and learn from patient experience to improve future practice.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Relevant staff and senior managers are familiar with the Adverse Events Policy, understand the criteria for a Significant Adverse Event Review, and apply it correctly.

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.

Amendment - 27/06/2024

When this complaint was originally published (19/03/2024) we made the following recommendation: "Clinical staff are aware of Kehr’s sign and are able to recognise symptoms of potentially serious abdominal conditions."  This has since been amended to "Clinical staff are able to recognise symptoms of potentially serious abdominal conditions." following receipt of new information.