Upheld, recommendations

Summary

C, the parent of A, complained about a delay in diagnosing A's thyroid cancer. A had an emergency admission to Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary with acute tonsillitis and a lump was found on their neck. This lump was subsequently excised four months later, and cancer was diagnosed the following month. C complained that no prior indication had been given that cancer was suspected, and that the delay in diagnosing this led to unnecessary operations. They also complained about a subsequent delay in informing them about identified nodules on A's lung that were being monitored.

The board told us that they recognised that an earlier biopsy could have led directly to definitive surgery, without the need for further investigations or procedures and ultimately to a quicker resolution for A. They confirmed that they developed a new neck lump clinic as a result of this complaint. We took independent advice from a head and neck surgeon. We noted that A should have had an urgent needle biopsy at an earlier point in time. This would have led to an earlier diagnosis and less surgery. We noted that an excision should only have been considered if a diagnosis was not possible from the needle biopsy. Therefore, we upheld the complaint that there was an unreasonable delay in diagnosing A's cancer. We considered that the new neck lump clinic was the best way to avoid this happening again. While we were assured that the delay did not have an impact on A's prognosis, we noted that it will have added to the distress for A and the family.

In relation to C's concerns about not being advised sooner that cancer was suspected, we noted that cancer did not appear to have been considered earlier. We were, therefore, unable to conclude that there was a failure to communicate a suspicion of cancer. We noted that the board had already acknowledged that they did not make A aware of the lung nodules when they were identified. Therefore, on balance, we upheld the complaint that communication was unreasonable. The board had already apologised for this and they told us that they had revised their process to require clinicians to copy GP letters to patients.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to A and C for the unreasonable delay in diagnosing A's cancer. 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:

• Neck lumps should be investigated with a needle biopsy in the first instance, and an excision should only be considered if a diagnosis is not possible from the needle biopsy. This should be undertaken urgently until cancer is excluded. This case should be discussed at the department's morbidity meeting and the findings of this investigation fed back to relevant staff in a supportive manner for reflection and 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.

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment that they received from the board. C said that they had been incorrectly diagnosed with Avoidant Personality Disorder (APD). C said that the board had failed to carry out a proper assessment of their presenting symptoms and incorrectly relied on historic information in reaching their diagnosis. They complained that the board's diagnosis had prevented them from accessing appropriate supports and treatment for other comorbidities.

According to NHS Inform, based on statistical information from England, personality disorders can affect one in 20 people and can be very difficult to live with.

In this case, we took independent advice from an adult psychiatry adviser. We considered that the board's diagnosis had been reasonable, however the possibility of a depressive disorder co-existing with this disorder's traits, and a physical disorder contributing to mood change, had not been adequately investigated. We also found that the board did not have an appropriate care pathway for APD, that staff had been unaware of it and that there was a lack of continuity in the board's procedures for requesting both internal and external opinions. Therefore, on balance we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to carry out a reasonable assessment of their symptoms. 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 arrangements for requesting second opinions within the organisation, and external opinions, should be clarified.
• The care pathways for Personality Disorder should be clarified, and in particular the treatment options of Cluster C disorders such as Avoidant (Anxious) Personality Disorder.

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 of a delay in diagnosing their late partner (A)'s cancer by medical staff in University Hospital Monklands. A was diagnosed with a rare cancer and died three weeks later. They had been unwell for around five months and had multiple hospital attendances and admissions. C complained that appropriate tests weren't carried out in a timely manner, and that A was misdiagnosed and treated for potential illnesses they did not have.

We took independent medical advice from a consultant in respiratory and general medicine. We found that A's case was complex and unusual and that it was reasonable to consider other diagnoses more likely than cancer, and to treat these accordingly while investigations continued. However, we found that reasonable action was not taken to manage the pleural effusions (fluid around the lung) that A initially presented with. Guidelines indicate that a fluid aspiration (removal of a small amount of fluid for testing) should have been arranged to rule out infection in the pleural space (cavity between lungs and chest wall). This was not arranged until almost eight weeks later. When this was done and the result was inconclusive, guidelines recommended that a biopsy be carried out and this wasn't done either. In addition, an ultrasound scan the following day reported ascites (fluid within the abdomen), and again a fluid aspiration was indicated but wasn't carried out.

A biopsy via thoracoscopy (keyhole camera into the pleural space) was not carried out until a further 14 weeks later. A's cancer was diagnosed thereafter. We found that there were earlier indications for a thoracoscopy and missed opportunities to diagnose A's cancer from the time of their initial presentation. While we acknowledged that an earlier diagnosis was unlikely to have altered A's prognosis, we noted it would have enabled palliative care to commence and allowed the family time to prepare and make the most of the time they had left together. We upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to carry out appropriate investigations in a timely manner, and for the consequent delayed diagnosis and impact of this on A and the family. 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:

• Adherence to relevant national guidelines on managing pleural disease and managing ascites. Appropriate investigations carried out as and when indicated, leading to timely 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 made a complaint about their late parent (A)'s discharge from University Hospital Hairmyres. C believed that A was not fit to be discharged and that this resulted in A having a fall, and sustaining an injury which then contributed to A's death.

We took independent advice from a physiotherapy adviser and a consultant physician and geriatrician (a speciality focussing on the health care of elderly people). We found that a comprehensive geriatric assessment was not carried out during A's admission. Given that this is a requirement outlined in the Healthcare Improvement Scotland (HIS) Care of older people in hospital standards, we considered it was unreasonable that no assessment appears to have been carried out. This may have provided a more comprehensive view of the issues affecting A.

We also found that A's case was not discussed at a Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting prior to A's discharge. If this meeting had taken place, the MDT could have considered whether A would have benefited from further rehabilitation (either in hospital or in the community).

Given that an MDT meeting did not take place prior to A's discharge, and given the lack of a comprehensive geriatric assessment in line with HIS standards, on balance, we considered the decision to discharge A was unreasonable. We upheld C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for not carrying out a comprehensive geriatric assessment during A's admission and for not discussing A's case at a Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting prior to their discharge. 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:

• Clinicians should have access to MDT meetings including all appropriate specialties to discuss patients on geriatric units who have MDT input.
• Older people presenting with frailty syndromes should have prompt access to a comprehensive geriatric assessment in line with Healthcare Improvement Scotland standards.

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 parent (A) was allowed to discharge themselves against medical advice. C considered that A was not fit to make this decision and that A's mental capacity had not been appropriately assessed.

We took independent advice from a consultant geriatrician (a specialty that focuses on the health care of elderly people). We found that no formal assessment of A's capacity was carried out when they were noted to be agitated, confused or not-orientated during their admission. We found that a senior doctor did not review A's decision-making capacity at the time that A expressed the wish to discharge themselves.

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 formal assessment of A's capacity when they were noted to be agitated, confused or not-orientated during their admission and for failing to ensure a senior doctor reviewed A's decision-making capacity at the time that they expressed the wish to discharge themselves. 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:

• Patient decision-making capacity should be kept under review and if their clinical condition changes (such as agitation, confusion, disorientation) this should prompt further review in line with the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000.
• Where there is evidence that the patient has experienced confusion and agitation during their admission, as in this case, senior doctors should take steps to assess the patient's decision-making capacity at the time they express the wish to discharge themselves.

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 treatment provided by the board to their spouse (A) who was initially admitted to University Hospital Monklands with a fractured leg before being transferred to Wishaw General Hospital for further management. A's condition subsequently deteriorated, in response to which they received a full dose of Tinzaparin (anticoagulant). As A showed no improvement, they underwent an exploratory laparotomy (a surgical incision into the abdominal cavity, for diagnosis or in preparation for major surgery). A few hours later, due to further deterioration, A underwent a further laparotomy. During this procedure, significant bleeding and an injury to A's spleen was identified. A splenectomy (a surgical operation involving removal of the spleen) was then performed. A's condition did not improve and they died shortly after.

We firstly obtained advice from a consultant orthopaedic (conditions involving the musculoskeletal system) surgeon. We found no failings in relation to the orthopaedic care provided to A. We then obtained advice from a consultant general surgeon. We found that while it could not be definitively said how the tear to the spleen identified at the second laparotomy had been caused, it was possible that this may have been caused some time between commencing closure of the abdomen at first laparotomy and the second laparotomy. However, we also noted that A should not have received a full dose of Tinzaparin before it was established whether they would need surgery, as this was irreversible and greatly increased the risk of bleeding during surgery. The surgical adviser told us that the dose of Tinzaparin administered prior to surgery intensified the bleeding caused by the injury to A's spleen and contributed to A's death, although they may still have died from the underlying cause of their acute illness that could not be identified during post mortem examination. We upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for unreasonably administering a full dose of injectable Tinzaparin to A before establishing whether they would require a laparotomy to explore the cause of their abdominal pain and deterioration. 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 should be aware that full-dose injectable anticoagulation should be withheld until it is clear that the patient does not require an operation due to the bleeding risk. In the event, a pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis is 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 about a failure to diagnose their late partner (A)'s spinal cord cancer when they attended Wishaw General Hospital. They attended the Accident & Emergency Department and were referred on to the medical team for an urgent MRI scan for a suspected malignant spinal cord compression (MSSC, MSCC can happen when cancer grows in the bones of the spine or in the tissues around the spinal cord). However, this was subsequently changed to a CT scan, the result of which was normal, and A was discharged. A attended a private neurology (the science of the nerves and the nervoussystem, especially of the diseases affecting them) appointment the following week, where arrangements were made for an urgent hospital admission and a tumour in the spinal cord was diagnosed. A was left confined to a wheelchair following surgery and died around ten months later. C complained that, in not carrying out an MRI scan, the board failed to adhere to national guidance on MSCC management.

We took independent medical advice from a consultant radiologist (a specialist in the analysis of images of the body), who advised that it is normal practice to initially investigate any patient with a history of prior malignancy and suspected MSCC with an MRI of the whole spine. We, therefore, considered that it was unreasonable in A's case for the board to have carried out a CT rather than an MRI scan. It was noted that there was limited MRI scanner availability the day A presented, however, guidance allows for an MRI scan to take place within 24 hours. We found that an MRI scan should have been undertaken the following day and this omission was unreasonable. Had the MRI scan taken place, the spinal tumour would have been detected earlier. We were unable to say whether this would have had an impact on A's overall prognosis. Therefore, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failure to conduct an MRI scan prior to discharging A. 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:

• NHS Lanarkshire's guidance on the management of MSCC should be reviewed to ensure that it is in line with NICE guidance. The findings of this investigation should be shared to ensure relevant learning for staff.

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 to us about the care and treatment that they and their two children had received from a dentist. They said that they were told by the dentist that they and the children did not have any cavities, but when they attended another dentist, they were told that they had cavities and needed fillings. One of the children also needed crowns and experienced an abscess.

We took independent advice from a dentist. We found that the dentist complained about had failed to take bitewing X-rays (detect decay between teeth and changes in the thickness of bone caused by gum disease) for C and their children, which was unreasonable. There were also failings in relation to documentation. Whilst it was reasonable that one of the children was told that they had no cavities, we found that based on the evidence available, C and the other child had cavities that needed treatment when they attended the dentist.

We also found that the abscess experienced by one of the children was not avoidable, however, the dentist did not follow the relevant guidance on treating the abscess and gave the child antibiotics with no justification for their prescription. There was also no evidence available to demonstrate that the dentist discussed and explained treatment plans to C on all occasions. Given these failings, we found that the dentist's practice fell below the expected standard and upheld complaints about the care and treatment provided to all three patients.

C also complained to us about the way in which their complaint had been handled. We found that the dentist had not responded to C's concerns regarding their own care and treatment, or that of one of the children. Consequently, we found that the dentist had not handled C's complaint in line with the NHS Complaint Handing Procedure and we also upheld this 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:

• Bitewing x-rays should be taken in line with the relevant guidance. (Selection Criteria for Dental Radiography, FGDP).
• Clinical notes should be recorded in line with the relevant standards (4.1, Standards for the Dental Team, GDC & Clniical and Examination & Record Keeping Standards (FGDP)).
• Communication with patients and/or their guardians, and conversations regarding consent, should be carried out and documented in line with the relevant standards (Principles 2 and 3, Standards for the Dental Team, GDC).
• Diagnosing and treating abscesses should be in line with the relevant guidance (Management of Acute Dental Problems Guidance, SDCEP).
• Radiography reporting should comply with the relevant regulations.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints should be responded to in line 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 on behalf of their parent (A) who had stage one oesophageal cancer at the time of the complaint. A was admitted to hospital via the A&E and later diagnosed with pulmonary embolism (PE, a blockage of an artery in the lungs).

C complained that the board delayed in diagnosing the PE and that the care and treatment they provided to A was subject to delays and unreasonable. C was concerned that A had been incorrectly treated as a palliative patient when their cancer was not advanced and that should not have impacted the care A received.

The board apologised for the delay in diagnosing PE and for the delays to A's care that happened whilst they were an in-patient e.g. delay to x-ray being carried out. The board considered various aspects of A's care, such as, when they decided to use a nasogastric (reaching or supplying the stomach via the nose) feeding tube and the action they took to manage A's sepsis, to be appropriate at the time.

We took independent clinical advice from advisers with relevant experience. We concluded that the board failed to diagnose the PE when they should have, that they failed to carry out the x-ray when it should have been done, and that they delayed starting antibiotics to treat suspected pneumonia. We considered that if these delays did not happen, it is likely that A would not have needed to be admitted to a high dependency unit for care. We noted that the decision to use a nasogastric feeding tube was taken reasonably and in line with relevant guidelines.

In light of this, we found that there was an unreasonable delay in diagnosing PE and that there was a delay in starting antibiotics for suspected pneumonia. These delays likely led to A's condition worsening and contributed towards the requirement for A to be admitted to a high dependency unit. There were also communication failings that led to a delay in an x-ray being carried out.

We identified failings in the way in which the board handled the complaint. We found that the board's response to C's complaint did not address the matters raised in a structured format, which made it difficult to follow.

As such, on balance, we upheld the complaint.

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:

• A suitable handover tool should be used consistently to ensure instructions have been carried out as prescribed, e.g (SBAR) Handover Tool.
• Patients presenting with symptoms of pulmonary embolism should be diagnosed and treated in line with the relevant guidelines. Clinicians should be aware of confirmation/cognitive bias in differential diagnosis of patients with pre-existing conditions.
• Patients should be treated appropriately for their presenting symptoms and where appropriate antibiotic treatment commenced.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaint responses should be clear and understandable, in line 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 their family member (A) received from the board.

A had a complex medical history and received treatment in hospital on a number of occasions. C became aware that a wound that A had on their leg had deteriorated. C was very concerned about the condition of the wound.

C complained that, although A had been in and out of hospital on a number of occasions, the board had failed to take reasonable steps to treat A's leg wound. They complained that A was discharged from hospital on multiple occasions following treatment for infections, but that follow-up arrangements were inadequate and, as a result, the leg wound was left to deteriorate. C said that A had suffered both physically and mentally and that family members had been extremely distressed seeing A suffer.

We found that A's complex medical history meant that they had multiple hospital admissions and that they were seen regularly by community based district nurses and tissue viability nurses. A's wounds were quite severe and were complicated by the fact that their condition caused their leg muscles to contract, keeping the two skin surfaces together and difficult to access for pressure-relieving treatment. There was no suggestion that the wound on A's leg was caused, or made worse, by any shortfall in the care and treatment provided by the board.

We were satisfied that staff caring for A were aware of their wounds and made efforts to relieve the discomfort that they caused as well as working towards helping them to heal. Upon each admission to hospital, A's wounds were assessed and a referral was made to the tissue viability service for review. Whilst on some occasions A was discharged home before the review could occur, they continued to receive care at home from the community tissue viability nurses.

Whilst overall we were satisfied that A's wounds were taken seriously and a management plan was in place, we found that some discharge documentation was incomplete and that communication between the hospital and community based teams was lacking at times. As such, the most up-to-date review information from the acute tissue viability service may not have been communicated to the community nurses who provided the regular care that A required. We upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

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

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

• Consider holding a multi-disciplinary team meeting to discuss how to improve communication between teams and provide a holistic approach to care for individuals with multiple needs.
• Remind all appropriate staff of the importance of completing all discharge documentation and wound care charts.

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.