Health

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised concerns about the nursing care received by her mother (Mrs A).

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that nursing staff failed to adequately supervise and monitor Mrs A's condition (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make but suggests that consideration should be given to when it is appropriate for patients to be shut off from observation.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the treatment which his wife (Mrs C), who suffered from liver disease, received at Glasgow Royal Infirmary (the Hospital) up to and including March 2003.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the treatment which Mrs C received was inadequate including that a liver biopsy was not carried out (not upheld); and
• (b)  staff failed to discontinue inappropriate medication (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about the handling of his medical treatment by Hairmyers Hospital (the Hospital), the length of the waiting times the treatment involved and the inclusion of parliamentary complaint correspondence within his medical file.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  before and after Mr C saw a Consultant at the Hospital, the waiting times he had been subjected to were unreasonable (not upheld);
• (b)  Mr C felt that he had not experienced continuity of treatment and his individual personal circumstances were not taken into account (not upheld); and
• (c)  Mr C's confidential information was mis-used and that this may have influenced the attitude of those involved with his subsequent care (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the care and treatment which he and his wife (Mrs C) received from their dentist (Dentist 1).  He also complained that Mrs C had been unfairly removed from Dentist 1's dental list and that she was not advised of the reasons for the decision.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  Mr C's waiting time for each appointment with Dentist 1 was unreasonable (no findings);
• (b)  Dentist 1's examination of Mr C's teeth was inadequate (not upheld);
• (c)  Dentist 1 incorrectly advised Mr C that he had a restricted mouth opening (no findings);
• (d)  Dentist 1 should not have advised Mr and Mrs C that they had 'very serious' or 'serious' gum disease or to avoid drinking tea, coffee and red wine (no findings);
• (e)  Dentist 1 was not entitled to discuss with or offer advice to Mr C on his medical history or medication (not upheld);
• (f)  Dentist 1 unfairly removed Mrs C from his dental list (partially upheld);
• (g)  Dentist 1 did not advise Mrs C of the reasons for his decision (not upheld); and
• (h)  Dentist 1 failed to address all points of complaint raised by Mr C (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that Dentist 1:

• (i)  apologises to Mrs C for failing to follow the correct notification process for de-registration and takes steps to ensure that he and his staff become conversant with the legal provisions in this area; and
• (ii)  apologises to Mr C for failing to address the points of complaint raised by Mr C and takes steps to ensure that, in future, he responds appropriately to all points of complaint made by patients in letters of complaint.

Overview

The complainant (Miss C) complained that Lothian NHS Board (the Board) failed to provide the necessary out-of-hours care to her fiancé (referred to in this report as Mr A) on the night of the 26 and 27 April 2004, contributing to his death from acute haemorrhagic pancreatitis on 27 April 2004.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  GP 2 failed to make an appropriate differential diagnosis of Mr A's medical condition (not upheld);
• (b)  the telephone receptionist failed to record and pass on all the symptoms described to him by Miss C (upheld);
• (c)  GP 3 failed to take a comprehensive medical history (upheld);
• (d)  GP 3 failed to give appropriate advice about paracetamol (not upheld); and
• (e)  the out-of-hours service failed to respond appropriately to Miss C's complaint (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i)  use the events of this complaint as part of future training for out-of-hours staff to reiterate the importance of good communication skills; and
• (ii)  (as the successor organisation) apologise to Miss C for the failure to properly handle her complaint in accordance with the regulations.

The Board have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant raised concerns about her dental treatment and the redress she obtained.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the treatment provided was inadequate (upheld); and
• (b)  the compensation was insufficient (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the dentist makes a payment of £3020 to the complainant and undertakes further training.

The dentist has accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised concerns about the way in which a dentist (the Dentist) had removed her and her children from the practice list.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Mrs C and her children were removed improperly from the Dentist's Practice list (no finding).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Dentist familiarise himself with the regulations governing removal of NHS patients from practice lists.

The Dentist has accepted the recommendation and will act on it accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about the failure by Inverurie Hospital (the Hospital) to admit his wife to a palliative care suite.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  staff failed to communicate effectively with Mrs C's GP prior to transfer (upheld);
• (b)  staff made ineffective use of the palliative care suite (not upheld);
• (c)  staff failed to communicate effectively with Mrs C's family (no finding); and
• (d)  the nursing records failed to comply with the regulations (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i)  apologises to the family for their communication failures; and
• (ii)  provides evidence to show the new documentation tool has been audited to demonstrate that nursing records adhere to minimum standards.

Overview

The Ombudsman received a number of complaints from parents (the Parents) of patients at the Practice about delayed orthodontic treatment at the Practice.  The Practice had advised the Parents that the delays were not the fault of the Practice but NHS National Services Scotland (NHSNSS) which must give the Practice approval to commence orthodontic treatment.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  there was a delay by the Practice in carrying out orthodontic treatment (not upheld); and
• (b)  there was a delay by NHSNSS in granting approval for orthodontic work to commence (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Practice and NHSNSS continue meaningful discussions to decide the circumstances where radiographs are required in individual cases which require prior approval for the Practice to commence orthodontic treatment.

The Practice and NHSNSS have accepted the recommendation and will act on it accordingly.

Overview

The Ombudsman received a number of complaints from parents (the Parents) of patients at the Practice about delayed orthodontic treatment at the Practice.  The Practice had advised the Parents that the delays were not the fault of the Practice but NHS National Services Scotland (NHSNSS) which must give the Practice approval to commence orthodontic treatment.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  there was a delay by the Practice in carrying out orthodontic treatment (not upheld); and
• (b)  there was a delay by NHSNSS in granting approval for orthodontic work to commence (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Practice and NHSNSS continue meaningful discussions to decide the circumstances where radiographs are required in individual cases which require prior approval for the Practice to commence orthodontic treatment.

The Practice and NHSNSS have accepted the recommendation and will act on it accordingly.