Health

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised a number of concerns about the treatment plan she received from a physiotherapist and the handling of her complaint about this treatment.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Physiotherapist 1 failed to provide suitable clinical treatment (upheld); and
• (b) the Board failed to deal with Ms C's complaint properly (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board incorporate the events of this complaint into future training / development sessions for physiotherapists to illustrate the importance of appropriate levels of record keeping.

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

Overview

Mr C raised a complaint with Tayside NHS Board on behalf of his mother (Mrs A) about an extravasation injury she received following an IV infusion.  Mr C also complained that his mother had not received proper or adequate follow-up after the injury causing several months of pain and distress before having the injury treated by plastic surgery.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Board failed to properly manage an IV infusion, resulting in an extravasation injury (not upheld); and
• (b) the Board failed to follow the appropriate policy and procedures with respect to such an injury (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i) make a written apology to Mrs A for the failure to properly follow the appropriate procedures following her injury and for failing to adequately ensure appropriate follow-up by plastic surgery while Mrs A was still an in-patient at the Hospital and following her discharge; and
• (ii) revise the current procedure for referral of extravasation injury in-patients to the Plastic Surgery Team with particular regard to ensuring continuity of review while an in-patient and appropriate follow-up action on discharge (in particular the giving of follow-up advice to GPs).

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

Overview

The complainant considered that his father's death in February 2005, aged 69, was hastened by his care and treatment by a GP Practice that month, for example, that they did not treat his illness appropriately and treated him less well because of prejudice about his alcohol history.  The GPs had said his father had gastritis, but, less than a fortnight later, he was dead from multi-organ failure, heart attack, pancreatitis and alcoholic liver disease.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Practice's care and treatment on 17 and 18 February 2005 were inadequate (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised concerns about the care and treatment that she received from her GP and a consultant psychiatrist.  Ms C claimed that, following their misdiagnosis of her, her daughter was placed in foster care.

Specific Complaints and Conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) GP 1 and Consultant 1 came to their own conclusions about Ms C's mental health without checking whether her account was accurate (not upheld);
• (b) GP 1 and Consultant 1 did not have any evidence on which to recommend that Ms C should be detained for medical treatment (not upheld); and
• (c) as a result of the incorrect and misleading medical assessments of Ms C, her daughter was taken away from her and put into foster care (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

On behalf of Mr and Mrs A (the aggrieved), a solicitor (Mr C) complained that their son (Mr B) died as a result of inadequate medical treatment.

Complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the GP1 failed to act in a timely manner (not upheld); and
• (b) MrB received inadequate medical treatment which led to his death (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of issues regarding an assessment carried out by a Community Psychiatric Nurse.  Mrs C also raised issues over the subsequent investigation of her complaint by Ayrshire and Arran NHS Board.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a) length of time taken of initial assessment (not upheld);
• (b) the adequacy of assessment (not upheld); and
• (c) the adequacy of investigation into complaint (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns that her husband (Mr C) had been inadequately cared for during a stay in Hairmyres Hospital (the Hospital); that the Hospital was not clean; that the out-of-hours Doctor failed to call an ambulance; that her husband was not taken to the nearest treatment centre; and that the subsequent handling of her complaint was inadequate.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the out-of-hours Doctor failed to call an ambulance for Mr C (upheld);
• (b) Mr C was inappropriately taken to a hospital that was not the nearest for treatment and was not transferred there subsequently (not upheld);
• (c) the care given to Mr C in Accident and Emergency at the Hospital was not as outlined in Lanarkshire NHS Board (the Board)'s response to Mrs C (not upheld);
• (d) the cleanliness of the Hospital was not of a good standard (not upheld);
• (e) Mr C was not assisted with feeding at mealtimes in the Hospital (not upheld);
• (f) Mr C's regular medication was not administered correctly while in the Hospital (not upheld);
• (g) the appropriate action was not taken following the diagnosis of Staphylococcus aureus (partially upheld); and
• (h) the response of the Board to Mrs C's complaints was not adequate (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i) introduce a policy regarding ambulance contact by out-of-hours Doctors; and
• (ii) apologise to Mr and Mrs C for failing to adequately communicate the findings of a swab of Mr C's elbow.

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

Overview

The complainant raised a number of concerns about the care she received from psychiatric services in Aberdeen and Elgin.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints from Ms C which have been investigated are that:

• (a) her condition was originally misdiagnosed in 1999 and continues to be so (not upheld);
• (b) she received incorrect medication which has worsened her condition (not upheld); and
• (c) the clinical judgement exercised by those involved was questionable as no regard was placed on her evolving medical history (not upheld).

Redress and Recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised a number of issues concerning the treatment her father (Mr A) received prior to and following an operation.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a) that staff failed to fully establish Mr A's current medical condition prior to surgery (partially upheld); and
• (b) inappropriate discharge (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board remind staff of the importance of recording appropriate information.

The Board have accepted the recommendation made in this report.

Overview

The complainant raised a concern about the care she received at her dental practice while having a dental impression taken.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is about failure to provide appropriate care when taking a dental impression (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.