Upheld, recommendations

Summary

Ms C, who works for an advocacy and support agency, complained on behalf of Mrs B about the care and treatment of her late husband (Mr A). Mr A was admitted to Queen Elizabeth University Hospital with symptoms including severe abdominal pain and weight loss. He underwent tests, including a CT scan, but nothing was found to explain his symptoms. His GP later contacted the hospital as they remained concerned about Mr A's pain, and the CT scan was reviewed. Abnormalities in Mr A's liver and abdomen were suspected, and a further CT scan and liver biopsy confirmed that he had secondary liver cancer. He was referred to oncology and died after two sessions of chemotherapy. Ms C complained that Mr A's cancer was not diagnosed earlier and that there were signs on the first CT scan that were initially overlooked.

The board accepted that there was a delay in diagnosing Mr A's cancer but said the original CT scan report was falsely reassuring. They did not consider that this delay had any bearing on Mr A's prognosis, as Mr A's cancer was advanced and would have been regarded as terminal at the time of the first scan. They noted that the missed diagnosis on the first scan had been discussed at a radiology review meeting and also fed back to the radiologist concerned.

We took independent advice from a consultant radiologist who noted that interpreting the first scan was not straightforward and that the abnormalities were subtle. Nonetheless, they confirmed that these were overlooked, leading to delay in diagnosis. We also took advice from a consultant clinical oncologist, who confirmed that the delayed diagnosis would not have altered Mr A's life expectancy but acknowledged that it would have delayed his access to palliative care services. We upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• The board should issue a written apology to Mrs B regarding the delay in diagnosing Mr A's cancer, and consequently the delay in him accessing palliative care services.

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

Mr C complained that there was a failure to carry out a proper range of diagnostic tests into the possible cause of blood in his late wife (Mrs A's) urine when she was admitted to Southern General Hospital. Mrs A underwent a change of catheter and a urinary tract ultrasound. A cystoscopy (a medical procedure used to examine the inside of the bladder) was also planned, but was not carried out.

We took independent advice from a urological surgeon. We found that the treatment Mrs A received was reasonable. We also found that an ultrasound and a cystoscopy would normally be the first wave of investigations to investigate blood in urine, and in doing so investigate the possibility of cancer. While an ultrasound was carried out when Mrs A was admitted to hospital, we found that the decision not to carry out the cystoscopy at that time was reasonable. However, we found that the subsequent delay in carrying out a cystoscopy was unreasonable. While the advice we received was that an earlier cystoscopy and diagnosis of bladder cancer may not have changed Mrs A's outcome, we were concerned that the uncertainty caused Mrs A, Mr C and their family considerable distress during a very difficult time. Given the delay in carrying out the cystoscopy we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Mr C also raised a concern that Mrs A was unreasonably discharged from the Victoria Infirmary following an emergency admission due to side effects from opiate pain relief that had been prescribed to her. Following this discharge Mrs A had to return to the hospital and was admitted a few hours later. We took independent medical advice from a consultant physician. We found that it was unreasonable that Mrs A was discharged and that, while relevant examinations were carried out, the relevant investigations were not. In particular, we found that the medical staff caring for Mrs A should have predicted the potential requirement for further naloxone (a medication used to block and reverse the effects of opiates) after the naloxone given by ambulance crew had worn off. Our adviser said that, according to the medical records, Mrs A was discharged after approximately two hours, which they considered to be too short a period in the circumstances. The adviser also considered that inadequate investigations into Mrs A's home circumstances were carried out before discharge. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• The board should issue a written apology to Mr C for the unreasonable delay in carrying out the cystoscopy.
• The board should issue a written apology to Mr C for unreasonably discharging Mrs A from the Victoria Infirmary.

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

• The board should ensure that patients with visible blood in their urine are investigated in a timely manner.
• The board should ensure that, where a patient with renal impairment or multiple medical problems has overdosed on long acting opiates, relevant investigations are carried out.
• The board should ensure that relevant guidelines are prepared on the use of naloxone in adult patients with renal impairment who have overdosed on long acting opiates.
• The board should ensure that a patient's home circumstances are adequately investigated when notification is received from a family member that they are struggling to cope at home.

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

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment provided to her late husband (Mr A). Over the course of a number of years Mr A attended the practice with anxiety and depression. During this time, the practice treated Mr A in primary care, and did not refer him to mental health services. Subsequently, Mr A did not attend the practice with these problems for approximately 18 months. Mr A then contacted the practice and reported persistent thoughts about suicide to the GP who saw him. The GP developed a plan of management, including referring Mr A to psychiatric services. However, the referral was not processed. Mr A committed suicide approximately ten days after his attendance at the practice. Mrs C complained that the practice failed to appropriately refer Mr A to mental health services in view of his presenting symptoms.

The practice said they provided appropriate treatment based on Mr A's symptoms during his earlier attendances. They did not consider a referral was appropriate at that stage. When Mr A returned and described persistent thoughts about suicide, they said a referral was appropriate. The practice acknowledged there was an error in processing the referral, although they noted that it was unlikely Mr A would have received an appointment before his death.

After receiving independent advice from a GP, we upheld Mrs C's complaint. We found there was an administrative failing in not making the referral (as the practice acknowledged). We also found the practice should have scheduled an earlier review when Mr A re-attended the practice. However, we did not consider the practice should have made a referral at any of Mr A's earlier attendances, and we found that the care and treatment provided during this time had been reasonable.

Recommendations

We recommended that the practice:

• confirm that the GP will review the relevant National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance and consider identifying this as a learning need in their personal development plan;
• confirm the GP will discuss this case as part of their annual appraisal; and
• apologise for the failings identified in this investigation.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care his late wife (Mrs A) received from nursing staff during two admissions to Forth Valley Royal Hospital. On the first occasion she was admitted with sepsis (a blood infection) and on the second occasion she was admitted with a hip fracture. In particular, Mr C complained that the board failed to carry out appropriate falls risk assessments, failed to appropriately manage Mrs A's medication and delayed in obtaining a review for Mrs A following a fall. Mr C also complained that it took an unreasonable amount of time for him to be able to speak to a senior staff member about his concerns.

During our investigation we took independent advice from a nursing adviser. The adviser considered that the overall care in relation to falls assessments, monitoring, care and falls prevention was unreasonable. They also found significant failings in how Mrs A's medication was managed.

The board accepted that it took an unreasonable amount of time for Mr C to speak to a senior staff member about his concerns. They also accepted that there was a delay in having Mrs A reviewed following her fall. The board also accepted that there were significant failings in how Mrs A's medication was managed. The board identified learning as a result of the complaint.

In light of the independent medical advice we received, we upheld all of Mr C's complaints. Although the board had taken steps to address the complaint, we made recommendations in light of our findings.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• The board should issue a formal apology to Mr C for the unreasonable level of care provided to Mrs A in relation to falls assessments, monitoring and care.

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

• The board should ensure that patients at very high risk of falls should be considered for referral to a falls co-ordinator or falls specialist.
• The board should ensure that in future situations similar to Mrs A's a medical review is requested sooner.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The board should ensure that senior charge nurses, and other frontline staff, have the skills and confidence to undertake early resolution of complaints.

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

Mr C complained to us about the care and treatment provided to him by the board in relation to treatment for his leg problems, and their communication with him. Mr C said that after a course of foam sclerotherapy (a procedure where medicine is injected into the blood vessels, making them shrink) for varicose veins in his legs, he was in a lot of discomfort. He said that he was told at a scan a month later that he had deep vein thrombosis (a condition when a blood clot forms in a vein located deep inside the body) but that he was not given appropriate treatment for this. He also said that he had been told contradictory things regarding the clot in his leg.

During our investigation, we took independent medical advice from a consultant vascular surgeon. We found that although the treatment that was given to Mr C was reasonable, there were two occasions on which follow-up scans should have been arranged but were not. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. We also found that the board had acknowledged that communication with Mr C had been poor, and that the lack of documentation of communication evidenced this. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained to us about the board's complaints handling, specifically that it took a long time for them to issue their final response to his complaint. The board accepted that they had failed to respond to Mr C's complaint in a timely manner and we therefore upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• The board should apologise to Mr C for failing to provide him with appropriate follow-up appointments after his scans.
• The board should apologise to Mr C for failing to communicate appropriately with him about the causes of his leg pain.
• The board should apologise to Mr C for failing to respond to his complaint in a timely manner.

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

• Follow-ups should be arranged for two weeks after a duplex scan shows a clot in the gastrocnemius vein.
• Details of appointments should be clearly recorded.
• Communication could be supplemented by a printed leaflet.

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

Mr C complained about the care and treatment received by his sister (Mrs A) at University Hospital Ayr. Mrs A was referred to the hospital for a respiratory opinion with a chronic cough. Mr C felt that there were delays in carrying out investigations and a lack of communication with Mrs A about her condition. Mr C also raised concerns about the board's complaints handling.

During our investigation we took independent medical advice from a consultant in respiratory medicine. We found that there were delays in Mrs A receiving follow-up respiratory appointments and that there was a failure to communicate appropriately with Mrs A about her diagnosis and treatment. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

We also found that the board failed to provide a reasonable response to Mr C's complaint, therefore, we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C and Mr A for the failings identified in this report.
• Apologise to Mr C for not addressing all of his concerns in their handling of his complaint.

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

• Patients should receive follow up clinical appointments within a reasonable timescale.
• Patients should have a clear understanding of respiratory consultants' views about their condition and the impact the resultsof tests may have on their diagnosis or treatment.

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

Mrs C was required to attend court on two occasions as a witness, and a victim, of charges relating to assault and threatening behaviour. Mrs C was identified as a vulnerable witness, and arrangements were made for statutory special measures to support her in giving evidence, namely witness screens and a witness supporter. However, outside the courtroom the accused was able to move freely throughout the courthouse, except for the witness waiting room.

Mrs C said that she tried to stay in the witness room for her own safety, but that she had to leave at some points as there were no toilets in the room, and she was also required to leave at lunchtime, when the court building closed. Mrs C said the accused waited outside the court building on one occasion, and also approached her and intimidated her within the court building.

Mrs C first complained about her experience to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), who told her that security within the court building was the responsibility of the Scottish Court and Tribunal Service (SCTS). She then complained to the SCTS. While the SCTS said they were restricted by the physical layout of the building, they also said that they could have made other arrangements, in addition to the statutory special measures. SCTS said these arrangements could have included:

• providing a separate access route, or working with police colleagues to stagger departure times;
• providing access to a different toilet; and
• arranging for Mrs C to remain within the building during lunchtime.

SCTS said these arrangements were not provided because they were not made aware by COPFS, or Witness Support, of any particular issues of intimidation or harassment.

After investigating this matter we found that COPFS and SCTS each gave different versions of the process that should be followed for notifying SCTS of the need for additional arrangements, aside from statutory special measures. Neither organisation gave evidence that their version of the process had been agreed between the two, and we were not able to conclude that either version was correct.

We considered that it was unreasonable of both organisations that they did not have a clear and shared understanding of this process, given that they are jointly responsible for working together to support and protect vulnerable witnesses. We upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C that arrangements were not put in place to avoid contact between her and the accused. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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

• There should be a clear process for COPFS to communicate to SCTS where they consider a witness would benefit from additional arrangements in the court building, such as arrangements to avoid contact with the accused.

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

Mrs C complained about the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS). Mrs C was required to attend court on two occasions as a witness and victim of charges relating to assault and threatening behaviour. She was identified as a vulnerable witness and arrangements were made for statutory special measures to support her in giving evidence, namely witness screens and a witness supporter. However, outside the courtroom the accused was able to move freely throughout the courthouse (except for the witness waiting room).

Mrs C said she tried to stay in the witness room for her own safety, but had to leave at some point as there were no toilets in the room. She was also required to leave at lunchtime when the court building closed. Mrs C said the accused waited outside the court building on one occasion, and also approached her and intimidated her within the court building.

Mrs C complained about her experience to COPFS, who told her that security within the court building was the responsibility of the Scottish Court and Tribunal Service (SCTS). She then complained to the SCTS. The SCTS said they were restricted by the physical layout of the building, but they also said that they could have made additional arrangements (in addition to the statutory special measures). They said that this could have included:

• providing a separate access route, or working with police colleagues to stagger departure times;
• providing access to a different toilet; and
• arranging for her to remain within the building during lunchtime.

SCTS said these arrangements were not provided because they were not made aware by COPFS or Witness Support (a voluntary organisation) of any particular need. In response to our enquiries, COPFS said they had identified Mrs C’s concerns on the Vulnerable Witness Application, so the SCTS would have been aware of these. However, the SCTS said that this application only related to the statutory special measures and they were not made aware of any particular issues of intimidation or harassment.

After investigating this matter, we upheld Mrs C’s complaint. We found that COPFS and SCTS each gave different versions of the process that should be followed for notifying SCTS of the need for additional arrangements outside of statutory special measures. Neither organisation gave evidence that their version of the process had been agreed between the two and we were not able to conclude that either version was correct.

We considered it was unreasonable for both organisations to not have a clear and shared understanding of this process given that they are jointly responsible for working together to support and protect vulnerable witnesses. We noted that COPFS had now introduced a cover sheet to the Vulnerable Witness Application to include some additional information about witnesses when communicating with SCTS. However, this did not include a specific field or prompt for noting the type of concern that arose in this case.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C that arrangements were not put in place to avoid contact between her and the accused, and for the delay in responding to her complaint. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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

• There should be a clear process for COPFS to communicate to SCTS where they consider a witness would benefit from additional arrangements in the court building (such as arrangements to avoid contact with the accused).

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Written responses should normally be sent within 20 working days of receipt of the complaint.

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

Mr C reported missed recycling bin collections to the council. He said that he reported these to the council on more than one occasion, and that his case was closed with no subsequent collection of the bins. He raised a formal complaint and the council responded by apologising and advising that the recycling bins had since emptied and that the service had returned to schedule. Mr C said the bins had not been collected. He said that after he raised his complaint, a council employee came to his house and spoke to his mother-in-law, however they did not leave any contact details so Mr C could not follow up the visit properly. He said he received no communication from the council about when the bins would be collected. Mr C complained to us that the council unreasonably failed to collect his recycling bins, and that they failed to adequately investigate and respond to his complaints.

We found that, while the council had identified issues with bin collection in Mr C's area, they had not taken the necessary steps to ensure that bins were emptied as per their schedule. We found that the council failed on a number of occasions to empty Mr C's recycling bins and we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

We found that the council did not provide Mr C with reasons for their failings and they did not provide him with a formal response at stage one of his complaint. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Write to Mr C with an apology and provide Mr C with a copy of the schedule for bin collections at his property.
• Monitor the area for a period of eight weeks to ensure bins are collected on schedule.
• Write to Mr C with a thorough explanation for their failings and advise him of the steps they have taken to address his complaints.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Take steps to ensure that all complaints handling staff are familiar with the complaints handling procedure, and identify and address any additional training needs.

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

Mr C complained to the council about missed bin collections and their failure to lock the gates to the bin area at his home. The council said that they had spoken to operatives to remind them of the importance of locking the gate. The council also said that they replaced the locks and offered to provide Mr C with a key for the lock so that he could lock the gates should he find them open again, though Mr C said he did not receive this key. The council also provided him with direct contact details for a supervisor and manager.

After the council closed the complaint, the problems started to happen again. Mr C said he would have to chase away young people who were congregating in the area to drink and smoke. He complained that he could not get in touch with the supervisor and manager on their phones, that they were not responding to his emails and that the council had failed to inform him that these members of staff were on long-term leave.

Mr C tried to raise his complaint again after the gates were left unlocked again and the council responded advising that they were treating it as a service request and that he had completed their complaints process. Mr C complained to us that the council's operatives unreasonably failed to close and lock the gate to the bin area. He also complained that the council failed to properly investigate and provide a reasonable response to his complaint.

We found some failings in the council's actions. It was evident that their investigation of the complaint and subsequent actions were not effective, as the problem continued to persist. We also found that the final response from the council to Mr C's complaint was inadequate. We upheld both aspects of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Remind staff that the gate to the bin area at Mr C's home should be locked. Regular inspections should be carried out over a period of three months to ensure that this has taken place.
• Offer Mr C a key to allow him to lock the gate if he finds it open.
• Write to Mr C to apologise for failing to fully investigate his complaint and for failing to ensure that the gate was being locked.

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

• Wherever possible, phone messages and emails should be checked and out-of-office notifications and voicemail messages should changed advising when an employee is on leave.

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.