Upheld, recommendations

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment provided to their spouse (A). A had a history or recurring urinary tract infections (UTI's) and was self-catheterising. The board gave A an indwelling (long-term) catheter to be changed every three months. Over the next several months, A attended A&E five times before being admitted and diagnosed with bladder cancer. C complained about the lack of arrangements to change A’s indwelling catheter, that requests for appointments were ignored and that A was only admitted after multiple visits to A&E.

We took independent advice from a consultant urologist (specialist in the male and female urinary tract, and the male reproductive organs), consultant in emergency medicine and a medical director specialising in palliative care. We found that, as the indwelling catheter was a trial, the board should have followed up with A on their progress. There was also unreasonable delays in A being seen by urology and in being advised of their cancer diagnosis. While it was reasonable that A was not admitted by A&E for examination sooner, the board acknowledged that there was a missed opportunity. Therefore, we upheld this part of C's complaint.

C also complained that A’s cancer diagnosis, discharge and care arrangements were not clearly explained. We found that the board made reasonable efforts to explain the cancer diagnosis to C and A. However, they did not reasonably communicate how they might manage once A was discharged home, and about the challenges associated with A reaching end of life. Therefore we upheld this part of C's complaint.

In relation to complaint handling, we found that the information provided to both C and this office was inaccurate in places and incomplete. Therefore, we made a recommendation to improve the board's complaint handling.

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 HYPERLINK "http://www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets" www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets .

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

• When a relevant adverse event occurs, the board should carry out a Significant Adverse Event Review (SAER) to investigate the cause and identify any potential learning.
• Patients should receive timely review, follow-up appointments and information based on their clinical needs and presentation and in accordance with relevant guidelines. A's case should be reviewed at the local Morbidity & Mortality meeting with a view to identifying opportunities that were missed to progress A's diagnosis and ways of ensuring similar delays do not affect future patients. The Board should consider whether this case could be used as an opportunity to reflect and improve the interface between the urology and emergency departments in order to minimise the risk of a similar case occurring again.
• Discharge planning should be person-centred and holistic and clear to patients, families and community services. In particular, the palliative care team may support complex discharges but it is the ward team who are best placed to support the patient's discharge. Teams should not just focus on their area of interest e.g. urology but on caring for the whole person. Patients with palliative care needs should be supported within their limited function to live well. Expectation of rehab should be realistic. Staff should explore what is realistic, what the patient and their families' concerns are and also be brave and explore where there are gaps in the system of support, what the best possible mitigation is. There should be thorough documentation of this. Spiritual / other support should be available. They are non-denominational / nonfaith and provide support to patients and families. Learning sessions should occur around recognising a palliative deterioration or the acute deterioration covered by NEWS. Recognising someone heading to the end-of-life phase is essential, as are developing communication skills to support staff to engage with patients and families.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Information provided to SPSO and the complainant should be accurate and complete. All relevant records in relation to an SPSO investigation should be provided from the outset of our enquiries.

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 their late partner (A)’s discharge from hospital was unreasonable. A was admitted to hospital with pneumonia and was discharged after ten days. Less than two weeks after discharge, A collapsed and was readmitted to hospital. A died a few days later. C questioned whether A had been fit for discharge. They also raised concerns about not receiving adequate education on the new medications that A was prescribed on discharge.

The board noted that A’s infection had improved with antibiotic therapy and that they had been stable and well enough for discharge home. They explained the rationale for the medications that A had been prescribed and apologised that medical staff did not have a better discussion with them at the time of A’s discharge.

We took independent advice from a consultant in acute and general medicine. We found that A's oxygen levels had been stable and their discharge was clinically reasonable. However, we noted that A's sodium level had been low during their admission but had improved on discharge. We found that no follow-up arrangements were made to ensure that A's sodium level was continuing to improve after their discharge. The working diagnosis on A's readmission was that they had had a seizure due to low sodium which led to hypoxia (deficiency in the amount of oxygen reaching the tissues) and cardiac arrest. It is possible that the fall in A's sodium level could have been detected had there been follow-up to re-check this. Therefore, we upheld C's complaint.

We also noted a discrepancy between the working diagnosis on A’s re-admission and the recorded cause of death on the death certificate. This was not identified by the board. Therefore, C was not provided with a coherent narrative of events surrounding A’s death and we made a recommendation to address this.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings identified in this report. 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:

• There should be robust discharge systems and processes in place, ensuring appropriate communication with patients and carers, and adequate detail in discharge documentation.
• Patients who are discharged with moderately low sodium levels, should be followed up to check that improvement is maintained. There should be clear guidance in place around this, to ensure it happens where indicated.
• The death certification process should be accurate and consistent with the clinical 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 complained that the board failed to reasonably communicate with their family when their parent (A) was admitted to hospital. A was taken to A&E following a fall at home.

A was moved to a ward following an x-ray and medical review showing that A had broken their hip. A underwent an operation later that day and remained in hospital until their discharge nearly seven weeks later. C also complained about the nursing care that A received.

We took independent advice from a nurse. We found that there was a failure to communicate with the family about the consequences of delirium. We also found that there was a failure to ensure A had access to bread/toast and milk. There was a lack of acknowledgement and details regarding A’s lost dentures, a failure to inform A or C that A had developed a hospital acquired pressure ulcer, poor record keeping and a lack of evidence of appropriate nutritional care interventions being followed. Therefore, we upheld C’s complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to A and 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 HYPERLINK "http://www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets" www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets .

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

• Where appropriate, there should be discussions with family members in relation to diagnosis, treatment and management. An appropriate record of this should also be made.
• Blankets should be available for patients on wards, particularly those that care for elderly, frail patients. When wards run out of blankets, there should be a process in place to obtain replacements without delay.
• Bread and milk should be made available on the ward in line with the Food in Hospitals specification. Toast should be made available to patients where this has been specifically agreed.
• Patients should be changed into nightwear as appropriate or offered a hospital gown where no personal nightwear is available.
• Patients experiencing delirium should be given additional assistance to help secure or monitor their personal possessions and in particular, dentures.
• Staff should be compliant with the Duty of Candour legislation and inform patients/relatives if they come to harm.
• Patient documentation should be completed to an appropriate standard and in line with the required standards of the Nursing and Midwifery Council: The Code in relation to record keeping.
• Patients admitted to hospital should receive appropriate nursing care including appropriate nutritional and fluid intake monitoring and recording. In addition, this should be appropriately documented.

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 adult child (A) received from the practice following their discharge from hospital.

C complained that A had struggled to get an appointment with a GP and that the practice failed to provide a reasonable standard of care in relation to pain management, A’s mental health needs, and follow-up with the health board.

The practice said that they were short-staffed and had been working on an emergency-only basis at the time of the complaint. When A had enquired about seeing a GP, there had been no indication that an emergency appointment was required. A was advised to phone again the next day or to attend A&E.

In respectof A’s pain, the practice said that the discharge medication had been managed in accordance with their policy and in recognition of the nation-wide shortage of the drugs prescribed. A was given an appointment to discuss pain when they reported that the medication was not working and a prescription for nerve pain was given.

In reference to A’s mental health, the practice said that this was discussed during a phone appointment. However, A had breached the practice’s zero tolerance policy during the conversation. A was issued with a warning letter after the incident but was not removed from the practice (as would be policy) in recognition of the mental health difficulties that they were experiencing.

This incident was reviewed as a part of a Significant Event Analysis Review (SEAR) and the practice identified learning to manage this type of occurrence in the future.

In respect of A’s follow-up with the health board, the practice confirmed no post-discharge requests had been made and that it was the responsibility of the hospital to issue clinic appointments.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that the practice had reasonably managed the discharge prescription for pain medication. While A had been appropriately directed to other services when no appointments were available, we found that the messaging could have been clearer and that reception staff had unreasonably provided advice about pain medication.

We considered A’s appointment with the GP to discuss pain was unreasonable as there was a failure to document any assessment or information to support the nerve pain conclusion reached.

In terms of A’s mental health, we considered that the phone consultation had been reasonably managed, as was the decision to issue a zero tolerance warning letter. The conclusions reached by the SEAR on this matter were also reasonable. We found that the practice’s actions in relation to A’s follow-up with the hospital was reasonable.

On balance, we considered that the care and treatment provided fell below a reasonable standard and we upheld C’s complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

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

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

• Advice relating to medical matters should be given by GPs or appropriately qualified members of staff.
• The practice should keep reasonable records of consultations undertaken with patients that clearly record any assessment undertaken and the basis for the diagnosis.

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) when they attended A&E. A had fallen from a height and injured their shoulder. A was x-rayed and diagnosed with a soft tissue injury to the shoulder and a minor head injury. A was discharged home and advised to use regular simple pain relief for the shoulder injury. A was later diagnosed with a rotator cuff injury which required an operation. C said that A should have been correctly diagnosed by the doctor in A&E and that the delay left A in significant pain and distress.

We took independent advice from a consultant in emergency medicine. We found that A should have been reviewed by a senior doctor before discharge. We also found failings in relation to a lack of follow-up and record keeping. Therefore, we upheld C’s complaint.

We also found that C’s complaint was not handled reasonably as there were clear inaccuracies in the board’s complaint response and no reflection on the failings. We made a recommendation to address this.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings identified in this investigation in relation to the standard of care at the A&E and complaint handling. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at  HYPERLINK "http://www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets" www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets .

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

• Patients who attend the A&E with a significant soft tissue injury should be provided with a reasonable standard of medical care in relation to the referral process and follow-up.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaint responses should be clear that failings and their impact are recognised and that any findings from the investigation are supported by the clinical records.

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 late parent (A). A was admitted to hospital and received treatment for a chest infection and pleural effusion (a build-up of fluid in the chest). A remained in the hospital awaiting discharge arrangements. During a visit to A, C was told that A's bed was needed for a more acute patient and that A would be transferred to a maternity ward as a boarder. C complained that A was not included in this conversation, and that the family felt pressured to accept an unsuitable move. They were concerned that it would negatively impact A’s care and wellbeing due to noise, disruption and the availability of equipment.

The board stated that A had been identified as a patient suitable for boarding and that ward moves are necessary when there is extreme pressure on capacity. The board also considered that the care provided to A was not affected by the move.

We took independent advice from a consultant specialising in acute medicine. We found that A was not considered suitable for boarding under the board's policy. We also found that there had been a failure to conduct and record a full risk assessment, and to record the reasons for this deviation from policy. There was evidence that the move caused A distress leading to a deterioration in their behaviour and acceptance of treatment. Therefore, we upheld this part of C's complaint.

C also complained that the board’s complaint response focussed on allegations of aggressive behaviour from A’s family towards hospital staff. C did not consider that this accurately represented events.

We found evidence of challenging behaviour documented in the available records. However, the board’s complaint response unreasonably focussed on these events, which were not ongoing. Therefore, we considered that the board failed to handle C's complaint reasonably and upheld this part of their 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 HYPERLINK "http://www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets" www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets .

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

• All decisions regarding boarding patients should be made following appropriate clinical considerations and a formal risk assessment. These should be clearly documented. Should a situation arise when a decision is made to deviate from the board's policy due to exceptional pressures, a clear rationale should be documented outlining why the decision has been made and how the risks have been weighed.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints should be investigated and responded to in accordance with the NHS 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 late spouse (A) for cardiac amyloidosis (the abnormal build-up of a protein (amyloid) in the heart).

C complained about delays in referrals, diagnosis and treatment. The Board did not uphold the complaint and considered that there had been no delay in referring A to an appropriate specialist or in their diagnosis and treatment.

C was unhappy with this response and brought their complaint to this office. C also complained that the board had failed to adequately investigate and/or respond to their complaint.

We took independent advice from a consultant cardiologist (specialist in diseases and abnormalities of the heart) and a consultant haematologist (specialist in blood and bone marrow). We found that A’s cardiology care and treatment was reasonable. However, we also found that there was an unnecessary delay in referring A for specialist haematological treatment and that this treatment was poorly documented. Additionally, we found that the communication with A’s family about A's treatment could have been better. We upheld this part of C’s complaint.

As these failures were not identified by the board, we found that the board had failed to adequately investigate and respond to C's complaint. 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:

• Patients should receive appropriate and timely care and treatment that is in line with relevant guidance. Where a patient has been referred to the National Amyloidosis Centre (NAC) and advice is awaited, appropriate and timely reviews of the patient should be carried out and where clinically necessary, the patient’s case should be prioritised.
• Communication with a patient and their extended family about their care and treatment should be proactive, clear, and timely.
• Patient records should be accurately completed with the appropriate level of information included, in accordance with the relevant medical and nursing standards.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints should be handled in line with the relevant complaint handling guidance when investigating and responding to complaints. 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.

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) during an admission to hospital. C complained that the board had failed to manage placement of a nasogastric tube (NG) correctly and did not act timeously on signs of a complication. C said that the board failed to carry out an adverse event review of this event.

C complained that the board dismissed A’s known diagnosis of myasthenia gravis (a rare long-term condition that causes muscle weakness) too quickly and failed to arrange a neurology (speicalism concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of disorders of the nervous system) review. Finally, C said that the board did not maintain A's privacy or dignity when providing end of life care and communication with the family was poor.

The board apologised for failures in A’s care in respect of the NG tube insertion and for aspects of their communication. The complication which occurred with the NG tube was a rare but known complication of the procedure. The board said that A’s case had been reviewed at a Mortality and Morbidity (M&M) meeting and points of learning had been identified.

We took independent advice from a consultant neurologist (specialist in the diagnosis and treatment of disorders of the nervous system), a consultant gastroenterologist (specialist in the diagnosis and treatment of disorders of the stomach and intestines) and a consultant respiratory physician (specialist in conditions affecting the lungs).

We found that there were aspects of A’s care which were reasonably managed including the review by neurology, the decision to site the NG tube, the end of life care provided to A and the review of the admission undertaken by the M&M meeting.

However, we found that the chest x-ray undertaken after insertion of the NG tube was unreasonably delayed. Therefore, we upheld this part of C’s complaint. However, we noted that the board had recognised this failure as part of their own review of C’s complaint.

C complained that the board failed to handle their complaint reasonably. We found that the board took a significantly long time to respond to C’s complaint and failed to provide C with any updates or a revised date of response. 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 in this report. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at HYPERLINK "http://www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets" www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets .

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaint investigations should be managed in accordance with the Model Complaint Handling Procedure. They should be managed within timescales or updates should be provided to account for delays and to provide a revised timescale for completion. Complaints should be properly investigated and the complaint response should be accurate.

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) during two admissions to hospital. Both admissions were due to concerns about A's lungs. A was admitted to hospital for a third time and was diagnosed with empyema (pockets of pus) in their left lung. C complained that this was missed during A's first two admissions and that A was unreasonably discharged from hospital on both occasions.

We took independent advice from a consultant who specialises in both respiratory and general medicine. We found that there was no evidence that empyema was present during the two admissions. However, there were missed signs that indicated the potential for empyema to develop. In particular, the presence of high C-reactive protein (CRP, an indicator of inflammation in the body) during the first admission and the recent history of pulmonary and pleural infection at the time of the second admission. We considered that it would have been reasonable for the board to carry out further investigation during A's admissions to hospital. We concluded that the board did not take reasonable steps to establish whether there was an evolving infection or potential for empyema to develop. Therefore, we upheld this part of C's complaint.

In respect of A's first admission, we found that A was clinically well enough to be discharged. However, there was a failure to recognise the significance of the raised CRP in the context of A's presentation, and to consider further assessment on this basis. Therefore, we upheld this part of C's complaint.

In respect of A's second admission, we found that A was clinically well enough to be discharged. In contrast to the first discharge, A's CRP was not as significantly high and was shown to be declining. As such, there was less indication that A would benefit from remaining in hospital. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to A and C for the failure to recognise the signs of potentially developing empyema and the unreasonable discharge. C has highlighted the importance to them that the apology acknowledges the impact on A and on A's spouse, who has had to provide care. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at HYPERLINK "http://www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets" www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets .

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

• Rising CRP blood test in the context of pleural infection should prompt further assessment and consideration of the potential for empyema to develop.

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 was assessed by a junior doctor in A&E who ordered various tests and investigations. A was later moved to the acute assessment unit and diagnosed with a perforated bowel. A underwent emergency surgery and developed sepsis. C complained that there was a delay in identifying A’s condition. They said that the board focussed on potential cardiac issues rather than an abdominal cause. C considered that this delay resulted in a worse outcome for A.

The board acknowledged that a more senior doctor may have identified the cause of A’s symptoms quicker. However, they said that the care provided was reasonable. They also noted that this this complaint had resulted in learning and ongoing development.

We took independent advice from an emergency medicine consultant. We found that there were a number of red flags in A’s presentation that should have raised the possibility of significant abdominal pathology. It did not appear that A was reviewed by a senior clinician.

We also found issues in the documentation. No intimate examination was recorded in the records and there was a lack of documentation around the interpretation of an x-ray. Overall, the initial assessment process led to a delay in the diagnosis of acute bowel perforation which is likely to have had a significant effect of the outcome for A. Therefore, we upheld 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:

• Patients should receive appropriate treatment including assessment, relevant tests and senior review in accordance with their symptoms.
• Case records should include details of any tests / examinations carried out and the rationale for any decision making.

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.