Health

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised concerns about the nursing care which her daughter (Miss C) received at Monklands Hospital (the Hospital) on 12  October  2005 and 13 October 2005 following an admission for a minor operation.  Miss  C is an insulin dependent diabetic and requires to eat meals on a regular basis.  Mrs C felt the staff failed to monitor Miss C's diabetic condition.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that between 12  October  2005 and 13  October  2005 nursing staff failed to adequately monitor Miss C's diabetic condition (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the treatment provided by his General Dental Practitioner (the Dentist) in regard to the provision of a set of upper and lower dentures.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the treatment which the Dentist provided to Mr C concerning upper and lower denture plates was inadequate (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about the hernia surgery which he had and about his post-operative nursing care.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  Mr C was asked by nursing staff to walk too early after his first operation (not upheld);
• (b)  Mr C was asked by nursing staff to walk unaided despite the fact that he complained of numbness in his leg (upheld); and
• (c)  Mr C’s operations were not carried out with a reasonable degree of skill (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board apologise to Mr C for the distress caused to him with regard to complaint (b).  She also suggests that relevant staff are reminded of the importance of adequate documentation of the pre-operative consent process.

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

Overview

The complainant Mrs C raised a number of concerns about the treatment that her late father (Mr A) received at Ailsa Hospital, Ayr.  She complained that staff handled her father roughly; inappropriate oxygen therapy was provided; and staff failed to monitor Mr A's fluid intake.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  staff handled Mr A roughly (not upheld);
• (b)  Mr A received inappropriate oxygen therapy (partially upheld); and
• (c)  there was inadequate monitoring of Mr A's fluid intake (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board share this report with Doctor 1 and encourage him to reflect on its findings.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the GP Practice (the Practice)'s treatment of him as a separated parent in respect of his son (Mr A)'s prescriptions for his ongoing serious medical condition.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Practice's prescribing and their treatment of Mr C were inappropriate (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

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.