Health

Summary

C complained on behalf of their client (B) that the care and treatment provided to B's relative (A) was unreasonable.  

In response to the complaint, the board acknowledged that there had been failings in the delivery of care throughout A’s hospital stay and explained that action had been taken in response to these failings.

We took independent advice from a nurse. We found areas of good practice. However, we found significant and serious failings in A’s care in relation to delirium, observations and vital monitoring, record-keeping and escalation processes. Therefore, we upheld C’s complaint. We recognise the learning implemented by the board which has led to significant learning and improvements to patient care and has addressed the failings identified in this case. 

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.

We also provided feedback that the board should reflect on the advice we received that the score given on the serious adverse event review (SAER) report was not reflective of the failures identified in this case. We also noted that a SAER should be reviewed in a timely manner in partnership with the patient and/or their family/carers and that in this case, A's family should have received regular updates. 
 

Recommendations

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complainants should be kept updated on their complaints in line with the Model Complaints Handling Procedure. We offer SPSO accredited Complaints Handling training. Details and registration forms for our online self-guided Good Complaints Handling course (Stage 1) and our online trainer-led Complaints Investigation Skills course (Stage 2) are available at https://www.spso.org.uk/training-courses.

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.

Note - 30 May 2025

On 21 May 2025, an earlier version of this summary was published in place of the intended final version due to an administrative error. This has now been corrected. We apologise for any confusion this may have caused.

Summary

C complained about being de-registered from their dental practice. C also complained that the practice failed to handle their complaint reasonably. Due to a broken tooth, C phoned for an emergency appointment and was told they could attend the same day. However when C arrived, they were given a temporary substance to place over the tooth until an appointment the next day. When C later phoned the practice to explain their situation had worsened, they were told to wait until the following day. C emailed the practice to complain about the service they had received but returned the following day to have the tooth treated. A year later, C requested an emergency appointment but was told that they had been de-registered and would not be seen.

We found that there was only very limited evidence to show that the de-registration letter was ever sent and that there was a delay in doing so. We found that the lack of record keeping in this case has made it difficult to assess the practice’s complaint handling. This in itself is unreasonable, given the concerns C raised. Overall, we upheld both complaints.

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.

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

• Patients should be notified of de-registration from the practice within a reasonable timeframe. Letters sent by post should be correctly addressed.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• All complaints should be handled in line with the NHS Model Complaints Handling Procedure (MCHP). In particular, where an early resolution response is provided, a full and accurate record of the decision reached and given to the person should be made. 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 board’s decision not to provide thyroid chondroplasty (a surgery to reduce the size of the Adam’s apple) as part of their gender affirming treatment. The board explained that though they used to have surgeons who could carry out this surgery, they no longer do. They said that the Scottish Government does not fund thyroid chondroplasty and therefore they cannot recruit surgeons for the purpose of performing the surgery and are prevented from using public finances to fund it.

We found that there is no obligation for the board to provide thyroid chondroplasty on the basis of Scottish Government protocols. However, protocols state that health boards should ensure they have clear documentation on what is available to their patients and have local policies in place regarding access to them. We gave feedback to the board on this point, but ultimately did not uphold C’s complaint.

C also complained that when they were in the process of having hair removal prior to gender reassignment surgery, the board stopped providing this service. Because hair removal at the site of surgery is a requirement, C had to pay for the hair removal to be completed privately.

During the course of our investigation, the board accepted that they had not been clear to them at the point of C’s complaint that it is the responsibility of the health board where the patient lives to arrange hair removal prior to gender reassignment surgery. The board apologised for the failure and financial inconvenience caused and offered to reimburse C for the laser hair removal. We upheld the complaint and made no further recommendations.

Summary

C complained on behalf of their parent (A) about the care and treatment they received from the board following neurosurgery (surgery performed on the nervous system, especially the brain and spinal cord). C complained that the board did not provide follow-up care to A and they were not referred to oncology (cancer specialists) for further treatment. C said that A required further surgery to treat recurrent disease a few years later as a result.

The board’s complaint response explained that an administrative error had occurred which had led to A not receiving follow-up care from neurosurgery or a referral to oncology. The administrative error had been managed via staff training to prevent it from happening again. In response to our enquiries the board confirmed that no internal review, such as a Serious Adverse Event Review (SAER), had taken place.

We took independent advice from a neurosurgery adviser. We found that it was unreasonable that A had not received the planned clinical follow-up after their surgery. It was also unreasonable that SAER or Duty of Candour guidance had not been followed in this case. As such, we upheld C’s complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to A 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:

• The board should initiate statutory duties and processes for learning when it becomes known that a potential harm has occurred. Including, but not limited to, Duty of Candour and adverse event review processes.

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

Summary

C complained about the standard of medical care and treatment provided by the board to their late sibling (A) during a long admission to hospital. A’s medical history was complex as they suffered from a number of life threatening conditions during their hospital admission and they were under the care of a number of specialities. It was not until after A died, when the post mortem was performed, that A’s cancer was identified.

C said that the various clinicians should have identified A’s cancer, and that communication was not reasonable. C also said clinicians did not manage A’s pain well which was unreasonable and very distressing for the family.

We took independent advice from specialists in urology (urinary system and male reproductive organs), cardiology (heart), radiology (imaging) and end of life care. We found that treatment decisions were reasonable, and that the board managed A’s pain in a reasonable way. We also found that it was reasonable for clinicians not to have diagnosed A with cancer. Therefore, we did not uphold C’s complaints.

However, there were aspects of communication that the board should consider improving and we provided this as feedback.

Summary

C complained on behalf of their late partner (A) who died from a stroke caused by a blood clot. A was admitted to hospital with seizures after collapsing at home and sustaining a head injury. A couple of days later A was identified to have had a stroke, and they died the next day. C complained that an MRI scan was not carried out in order to verify the cause of A’s seizures (a blood clot), in a timely manner to enable acute stroke interventions.

We took independent advice from a consultant in intensive care medicine and a consultant stroke physician. We found that receiving a CT head scan when A first presented was appropriate. A working diagnosis of seizure was reasonable at that time. We found that it was reasonable that time critical acute stroke interventions were not indicated, and therefore an MRI was not indicated. A repeat CT scan did not show any significant changes from the initial scan. We noted that an MRI scan at this point would have been unlikely to have altered A’s immediate management.

C was concerned that placing A in a medically induced coma masked the progression of the stroke, however, we found that this action was in keeping with guidelines. We considered that the clinical management of A was reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold C’s complaint.

Summary

C complained about the decision to stop the anticoagulant (blood thinning) medication given to their late parent (A) and a lack of communication with the family around this decision. The practice instructed to stop the medication due to an unexplained bleed. Following this stoppage, A died from a stroke. A’s family contacted the practice to discuss their concerns about the medication but they were unable to speak to a clinician in a timely manner.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser. We found that there were clear indications for A to be on anticoagulant medication and that it was unreasonable that the medication was stopped without a replacement in place. The decision to stop the medication was not fully informed. We noted that the practice did not undertake timely blood tests or communicate with A’s family and the relevant specialists. We also found failings around the administration of blood tests.

The practice carried out a Significant Adverse Event Review (SAER), which we found was not in line with relevant national guidance. We upheld C’s complaint

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to the family 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:

• Significant Adverse Event Reviews should be reflective and learning processes that ensure failings are identified and any appropriate learning and improvement taken forward. SAERs should be held in line with relevant guidance.
• Appropriate blood tests should be carried out in line with relevant guidance when anticoagulant medication is stopped or replaced. Test results should be appropriately actioned.
• Contacts to the practice from patients or their carers should be adequately assessed to ensure that they are appropriately escalated and, where necessary, there is discussion with the appropriate member of staff, including clinicians.
• Patients should be fully assessed prior to the stopping of anticoagulation medication with appropriate consideration given to the risks. Full information should be sought, including where appropriate communication with relevant specialists and the family members prior to any decision being reached. Where this information is received in the GP’s absence, arrangements should be in place for this to be picked up by another clinician.

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 parent (A) received during a hospital admission. C complained about the way episodes of agitation and aggression were managed by the board including in respect of administration of medicines; bruising to A during episodes of restraint and lack of dignity; a failure to manage their nutritional needs; and poor communication with A’s family.

The board’s response to C’s complaint advised that medication had been used to settle A when other measures had been unsuccessful. The board said that A’s weight loss had been recognised and a referral had been made to the dietician, however, they had been discharged from hospital before a review could take place. It was recognised that documentation including fluid and food intake charts were incomplete and steps would be taken to ensure improved compliance. The board considered there had been good communication with A’s family, however, they apologised for the lack of empathy reported by C, which staff would be asked to reflect on for future learning.

We took independent advice from a senior nurse adviser and a consultant geriatrician (specialist in medicine of the elderly). We found that there were aspects of A’s care which were reasonably managed particularly in relation to the way episodes of agitation and aggression had been managed on the ward. We found there were aspects of A’s care which were unreasonably managed particularly in relation to management of their nutritional needs, record keeping and communication.

On balance, we considered the board failed to provide a reasonable standard of care and treatment to A 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 in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets

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

• The board should ensure effective communication with family members, particularly in circumstances where Adults With Incapacity is in place.

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendations

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

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

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

Summary

C raised concerns about the care and treatment provided to their sibling (A). A underwent a series of hospital admissions, suffering from bleeding from their bladder, following radiotherapy. During these admissions, the majority of communication between the board and the family was with A’s partner (B). A was initially expected to recover from the radiotherapy but was admitted and discharged repeatedly, with some readmissions happening a matter of hours after A was discharged. A continued to deteriorate and died in hospital.

C believed that A was not provided with an adequate standard of urological or nursing care. They felt that A was not provided with appropriate treatment and that they were not reviewed properly by other medical specialties, given the complexity of their case. C was also concerned that A was not provided with adequate nursing care. C believed that the board had not acknowledged systemic failings which impacted on A’s care, wellbeing and adversely affected the outcome of their treatment.

We took independent advice from a consultant urologist and a registered nurse. We found that A’s urology care fell below a reasonable standard, as did their nursing care and we upheld these aspects of the complaint.

We found that A was reviewed appropriately by other medical specialties and this aspect of C’s complaint was not upheld.

Finally, the opportunity to perform surgery on A was missed and this contributed to A’s deterioration. It was not possible, however, to determine whether A would have survived if their care had been different. The board failed to transfer A to a different consultant or offer a second opinion when this was requested and they failed to communicate reasonably with A’s family about their care. We upheld these aspects of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• The board should apologise separately to C & B for the failures in A’s 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:

• Improved management of long-term or complex patients, with clear communication between different medical specialties. The board should review the management approach to long-term complex patients, focusing on the shared care arrangements between differing specialties.
• Patients admitted to hospital should receive appropriate nursing care including appropriate nutritional and fluid intake monitoring, when requested as part of their care plan.
• A review of whether urology patients can be provided with a dedicated ward, or part of a ward.
• Consultant care transfer and second opinion requests should be managed reasonably and transparently.
• Patients should receive adequate nutritional support to support their treatment and recovery. The board should develop an action plan, reviewing A's case and identifying learning for the staff involved in A's care.
• Patients admitted to hospital should receive reasonable medical care including being offered appropriate treatment options, nutrition, and review after transfer from HDU. Clinical correspondence should be completed to an appropriate standard.
• Patients admitted to hospital should receive appropriate nursing care including appropriate recording of their patient centred care plan.
• Patients admitted to hospital should receive appropriate nursing care including recording and management of wounds or pressure injuries.
• Decisions on surgery should be explained to the patient whenever possible, allowing the patient or their family to make informed decisions about their treatment.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaint responses should be clear and written in plain English whenever possible. Where clinical terms or technical language is used, this should be clearly explained in the body of the letter.

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.