Health

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) was concerned that treatment to one of her teeth was inadequate and quickly failed.  She was also unhappy about the way her complaint about this had been handled by the dental practice.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the treatment given on 6 December 2004 was inadequate (not upheld); and
• (b) the complaint about this was not handled appropriately (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Practice apologise to Ms C for any confusion caused by the letter of 30 June 2005.

The Practice have accepted the recommendation and will act accordingly.  The Ombudsman asks that the Practice notify her when the recommendations have been implemented.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised a number of concerns that her mother (Mrs A) had not been properly supervised by staff resulting in a number of falls which were not properly recorded or notified.  Ms C also complained that she was not properly notified of her mother’s death and that Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board failed to respond properly to her complaints.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Board failed to properly supervise Mrs A and allowed her to fall on a number of occasions which were not properly reported (not upheld);
• (b) the Board failed to properly notify Ms C of her mother’s death (not upheld); and
• (c) the Board failed to respond to her complaint accurately (no finding).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised concerns about a denture made by the dentist and about the dentist's attitude.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is about the fit of the denture (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complaint concerned the response time taken for an Ambulance to attend following an emergency telephone call.  The complainant (Miss C) was unhappy about the delay and the explanations given for this.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) there was an inadequate response to a '999' call (partially upheld); and
• (b) there was excessive delay in responding to Miss C's complaint and in the review which followed (upheld).

 Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Service:

• (i) provide the Crew involved in the incident with a copy of this report and ensure that steps are taken to identify and provide any training needs relating to responding to emergency calls;
• (ii) apologise to Miss C and her family for the delays experienced while pursuing her complaint; and
• (iii) review their complaint handling systems and procedure and, in particular, systems designed to track and monitor the progress of complaints.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised concerns about the supervision of her medication and that she could not discuss the matter with a GP.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Practice provided inadequate medication supervision (not upheld); and
• (b) there was communication failure (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about a delayed referral for orthodontic treatment.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Dentist delayed making an orthodontic referral (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant raised concerns about inadequate and delayed dental treatment.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) clinical treatment was inadequate (not upheld); and
• (b) the referral was delayed (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The Complainant (Mr C) had a heart attack in December 2002.  Mr C said that as he was 55 years old at that time, a heavy smoker, and always complaining of chest pain his.  He felt that GP 1 should have sent him to a specialist to check his heart condition.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) inadequate care and treatment led to Mr C having a heart attack. GP 1 did not provide Mr C with adequate care and treatment which resulted in him having a heart attack (not upheld);
• (b) GP 1 inappropriately prescribed venlafaxine (not upheld);
• (c) GP 1 inappropriately suggested on a number of occasions that Mr C take ibuprofen (not upheld);
• (d) GP 1’s record keeping was not of a professional standard because there were significant omissions. (not upheld); and
• (e) GP 1’s record keeping was not of a professional standard because parts of the record were illegible (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that GP 1 takes action to ensure that he produces records that are legible.

GP 1 has accepted the recommendation and will act on it accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C)'s late husband (Mr C) was given an angiogram test (which showed serious blockages in his heart arteries) in September 2004.  She felt that he might have lived if he had had an angiogram in October 2003 because she felt that an earlier view of his arteries would have enabled him to have further treatment, such as surgery, earlier, when he would have had a better chance of survival.  As it was, the later angiogram, and, therefore, the later diagnosis meant that by the time he had further treatment (surgery), he was at very high risk of not surviving it.  Indeed, he did die shortly after such surgery.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is the timing of an angiogram (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendation to make.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) was concerned that her cancer could have been diagnosed earlier had the appropriate referral been made, and felt that Lothian NHS Board failed to deal with her complaint in a satisfactory manner.  During my investigation, concern was also raised over the content of a letter from a Consultant Surgeon regarding the investigation of Ms C's mammograms.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a) failure to make appropriate referrals despite agreed practice (upheld) the consequences of which had a devastating impact on Ms C's life (not upheld);
• (b) that the NHS complaints process took too long (upheld) and that the NHS Independent Review Panel’s report did not reflect many of the issues raised and made no recommendations (not upheld); and
• (c) whether a question raised by a Consultant Surgeon regarding the appropriateness of the investigation of Ms C's mammograms was justified (no finding).

Redress and Recommendations

The Ombudsman recognises that the Board have already taken steps to address the issues raised and, therefore, has no recommendations to make.  She has, however, asked that the Board let her have further information about the monitoring of their referrals process.