Health

  • Report no:
    200601576
  • Date:
    November 2007
  • Body:
    Lanarkshire NHS Board
  • Sector:
    Health

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, complained that his late mother (Mrs A)'s fluid retention had not been treated correctly while she was in Wishaw General Hospital.  He was concerned, in particular, about a failure to recommence diurectic medication.  He believed that this led to congestion on Mrs A's lungs which he felt was the cause of her death.  Mr C was unhappy that the death certificate said the cause of Mrs A's death was Alzheimer's disease.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

  • (a) Mrs A's fluid retention was not treated correctly (upheld); and
  • (b) Mrs A's death certificate was completed incorrectly (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

  • (i) pass a copy of this report to the Clinical Nurse Specialist who audited the ward in 2007 to decide whether it should be reflected in the action plan;
  • (ii) create a structured programme of review of medical records;
  • (iii) share this report with all clinical staff involved in Mrs A's care;
  • (iv) ensure that, when clinical staff are asked to review meetings notes they are, where appropriate, reminded of the importance of checking the accuracy of clinical information provided;
  • (v) apologise to Mrs A's family for the failures in her care;
  • (vi) take steps to correct the error in Mrs A's death certificate or provide acceptable reasons why this cannot be done;
  • (vii) consider whether death certification should be included in the continuing education of medical staff; and
  • (viii) apologise to Mr C for the failure to respond appropriately to his concerns about the error in the death certificate.

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

  • Report no:
    200601233
  • Date:
    November 2007
  • Body:
    Ayrshire and Arran NHS Board
  • Sector:
    Health

Overview

The complainant (Miss C) had a number of concerns about the care and treatment given to her late mother (Mrs A) at Ayr Hospital (the Hospital).  In particular, she felt that the Hospital had not correctly dealt with problems Mrs A had had with her legs and had failed to provide Mrs A with treatment in the days prior to her death.  Miss C was also concerned that medical records recorded a conversation between herself and a consultant which she said could not have happened on the date given.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

  • (a) the care and treatment provided to Mrs A was not appropriate (partially upheld); and
  • (b) information recording a conversation in the medical records was inaccurate (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board apologise to Miss C for the failure to appropriately assess Mrs A's needs following the decision to end active treatment and for failing to ensure all relevant notes were made available to the Ombudsman's office during the initial investigation of this complaint.

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

  • Report no:
    200601034
  • Date:
    November 2007
  • Body:
    Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board
  • Sector:
    Health

Overview

Ms C was concerned her son (Mr A) had suffered from a deterioration in his mental illness in 2005 but that this had not been recognised by mental health professionals involved in his care.  As a result, his condition had not been correctly managed.  She believed that, if appropriate care and treatment had been provided, an alleged incident in June 2005 involving Mr A would not have occurred.  She was further unhappy that his contact with Community Psychiatric Nurses was reduced in July 2005 in response to a perceived risk to them.  Ms C was also unhappy about the response she had received from Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board (the Board) following her complaints about this.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

  • (a) the care and treatment given to Mr A during 2005 were inadequate (not upheld); and
  • (b) there were failures in the handling of Ms C's complaint (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board apologise to Ms C for the failures identified in responding to her complaint.

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

  • Report no:
    200600276
  • Date:
    November 2007
  • Body:
    A Dentist, Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board
  • Sector:
    Health

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about the care and treatment she received from her dentist (the Dentist), and about his attitude in handling her complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

  • (a) the Dentist failed to provide Mrs C with dental treatment of a reasonable standard on 4 April 2006 in that he broke her tooth (not upheld);
  • (b) the Dentist mishandled Mrs C's complaint (not upheld); and
  • (c) the Dentist's attitude towards Mrs C was demeaning (no finding).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Dentist ensures that appropriate records are kept, including x-ray, in respect of root canal treatment.

  • Report no:
    200503486
  • Date:
    November 2007
  • Body:
    Tayside NHS Board
  • Sector:
    Health

Overview

The complainant's (Misses C) raised a number of concerns that their late mother (Mrs C) had been inappropriately treated by a district nurse (Nurse 2) at a home visit.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

  • (a) Nurse 2 provided inadequate care and treatment leading to a loss of dignity for Mrs C (partially upheld);
  • (b) there were communication failures between nursing staff (upheld); and
  • (c) Tayside NHS Board had failed to deal with appropriately and investigate thoroughly Misses C's complaint (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

  • Report no:
    200503321
  • Date:
    November 2007
  • Body:
    Ayrshire and Arran NHS Board
  • Sector:
    Health

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about the nursing care her late mother, Mrs A, received at Ayr Hospital and Biggart Hospital between October 2004 and February 2005 regarding pressure sores (heel) her mother developed.  She also complained that staff failed to keep the family informed of Mrs A's condition.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

  • (a) the management of Mrs A's pressure sores was inadequate (upheld); and
  • (b) staff communication with Mrs A's family was poor (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

  • (i) provide evidence that the implementation of improvements in the prevention of pressure ulcers has resulted in an increase in standards. This should include: information relating to the monitoring of standards of pressure ulcer prevention; the role of the senior nursing and specialist nursing staff in the monitoring process; and details of the provision of training and support for staff in making decisions about choices of pressure-relieving equipment and appropriate dressing materials; and
  • (ii) provide evidence to demonstrate that changes in communication strategies for carers had resulted in improved care.

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

  • Report no:
    200501660
  • Date:
    November 2007
  • Body:
    Tayside NHS Board
  • Sector:
    Health

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) complained about the care and treatment her sister (Mrs A) received at Ninewells Hospital, Dundee (the Hospital).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

  • (a) there was an unreasonable delay in arranging an MRI scan following Mrs A's admission to the Hospital in November 2003 (upheld);
  • (b) the delay caused Mrs A's condition to worsen and become irreparable leaving her in constant and severe pain (not upheld);
  • (c) there was a failure by the Hospital's Pain Clinic to monitor or arrange appropriate follow-up in relation to the medication prescribed for Mrs A (not upheld); and
  • (d) there was an unreasonable delay by Tayside NHS Board (the Board) in the handling of the complaint (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

  • (i) issue Mrs A with a full formal apology for the failures identified in part (a) of the complaint. The apology is to be in accordance with the Ombudsman's guidance note on 'apology' which sets out what is meant by and what is required for a meaningful apology; and
  • (ii) provide evidence to the Ombudsman of the steps taken to prevent a reoccurrence of the failures identified in paragraphs 21 to 23 of the report.

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

  • Report no:
    200501228
  • Date:
    November 2007
  • Body:
    Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board
  • Sector:
    Health

Overview

The complainant's (Mrs C) father (Mr A) died on 28 December 2004 following treatment in Gartnavel General Hospital (the Hospital).  She was concerned that there was an unreasonable delay in diagnosing his cancer and that he was not provided with adequate treatment on admission to the Hospital.  Mrs C also felt that there were unreasonable delays in the handling of her complaint by Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board (the Board).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

  • (a) there was an unreasonable delay in diagnosing Mr A's cancer (not upheld);
  • (b) during MrA's admission to the Hospital in November and December 2004, he was not provided with adequate treatment; in particular, there was a delay before any attempt was made to arrange a stent and radiotherapy (upheld);
  • (c) Mr A had an unnecessary second bronchoscopy (upheld); and
  • (d) there were undue delays in the handling of the complaint by the Board (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board, reflecting on this case:

  • (i) review their guidelines to ensure that in cases similar to this one, staff understand the need for the appropriate multi-disciplinary team to meet at the earliest possible opportunity to discuss all options for investigation, treatment or non treatment. She also recommends that options are discussed in detail with patients and/or with their family in such circumstances;
  • (ii) review the circumstances in which it may be appropriate to provide palliative treatment prior to firm diagnosis, and that they include their findings in revised clinical guidelines for staff. The Ombudsman asks that the Board inform her of the outcome of this review and the actions taken; and
  • (iii) review their methods of obtaining information from internal sources with a view to ensuring that there are no resultant avoidable delays in responding to complaints.

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

  • Report no:
    200500951
  • Date:
    November 2007
  • Body:
    Grampian NHS Board
  • Sector:
    Health

Overview

Ms C raised a number of concerns on behalf of her mother (Mrs A) that she had not received proper or adequate treatment from Grampian NHS Board (the Board) whilst in Woodend Hospital (Hospital 1) for a knee operation.  She was transferred to Aberdeen Royal Infirmary (Hospital 2) on 11 December 2004.  

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Board failed to:

  • (a) the Board failed to provide proper or adequate nursing and medical care to Mrs A (upheld);
  • (b) the Board failed to identify a small bowel obstruction (upheld); and
  • (c) the Board failed to communicate effectively with Mrs A’'s family (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

  • (i) review medical and nursing documentation and advise the Ombudsman of the outcome of the review;
  • (ii) introduce a system for the audit of clinical documentation, for example pulling five files on a monthly basis, and advise the Ombudsman of the proposed action; and
  • (iii) consider if there are training needs for staff in relation to communication with patients and relatives/friends.

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

  • Report no:
    200500940
  • Date:
    November 2007
  • Body:
    Ayrshire and Arran NHS Board
  • Sector:
    Health

Overview

The complainant, Ms C, raised a number of concerns about what happened to her when she was admitted to Crosshouse Hospital (the Hospital) for diagnostic endoscopy.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Hospital failed to explain Ms C's inappropriate admission adequately (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make; however, she asks that this office be provided with a copy of the guidelines when they are ratified.