Health

Overview

The complainant (Miss C) raised a number of concerns about the treatment she received at the Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow (the Hospital) in July 2005 following an operation to remove her appendix.  The complainant was concerned that the management of the wound was poor and that staff had not told her that her appendix had been gangrenous and the wound was at risk of infection.  She also complained there was a failure to inform the thyroid clinic of the result of a blood test and that her antithyroid medication had been increased.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)       there was poor wound management and communication (not upheld); and
• (b)       staff failed to advise the thyroid clinic of the result of a blood test and that antithyroid medication had been increased (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board gives consideration to providing telephone or electronic updates to out-patient clinics when discharge letters for in-patient stays will not be ready prior to the next out-patient appointment.

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

Overview

The aggrieved (Mr C) raised a number of concerns through his Member of the Scottish Parliament (Mr A) about the treatment his wife received at Falkirk Royal Infirmary (the Hospital) during 2003 and the way his complaint was handled.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)       the clinical treatment which Mrs C received was inadequate (not upheld); and
• (b)       the tone of one of the Board's response letters to Mr A was inappropriate (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about the treatment received by his wife (Mrs C) at their medical practice (the Practice) during February and March 2005.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) there was a delay in diagnosing that Mrs C was suffering from Cauda Equina Syndrome (CES) (not upheld); and
• (b) the clinical records contained inaccurate information (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Practice reminds the GPs concerned about the need to complete clinical records in accordance with guidance from the professional bodies.

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

Overview 

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns regarding the treatment provided to his wife (Mrs C) by the Mental Health Directorate. 

Specific complaint(s) and conclusion(s)

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Mrs C should have been assessed by a Community Psychiatric Nurse (CPN) (not upheld);
• (b) the care/treatment package provided to Mrs C was inadequate (not upheld); and
• (c) the Consultant failed to take appropriate action when Mr C pointed out errors in a letter which was copied to Mrs C’'s GP (not upheld]).

Redress and recommendation(s)

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised two specific complaints on behalf of her sister (Ms D), who she believed was wrongly discharged from NHS care. into Aberdeenshire Council (Local Authoritythe Council)'s care.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Scottish Executive procedures were not followed when tMsDhe complainant's sister was discharged from NHS care ( not upheld); and
• (b) the BoardNHS Grampian should fund the Ms D'scomplainant's sister's care home fees (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make to the Board.

Overview 

The complainant (Mr C) was admitted to the Raigmore Hospital (the Hospital) following a car accident on 19 December 2004.  He suffered an injury to his shoulder.  Mr C was concerned that this was not correctly diagnosed or followed-up at the time.  He complained that subsequently he was seen by a number of different doctors at his General Practice (the Practice) and was not correctly diagnosed until May 2005. 

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) on 19 December 2004 there was a failure by the Hospital to diagnose the extent of his injuries or arrange appropriate follow-up care; (not upheld);
• (b) at subsequent appointments the the Practice failed to provide adequate care and treatment (not upheld); and
• (c) there was no continuity in the care provided by the Practice because MrChe was seen by so many different doctors. (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that :

during periods when the continuity of care may be problematic the Practice reinforce with all staff the desirability of clarifying, wherever possible, the patient's understanding of the full course of treatment at each contact.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of issues regarding the treatment and care provided to his late father (Mr A).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the treatment provided to Mr A was inadequate and this led to him sustaining a chyle leak (not upheld);
• (b) staff continued to replace Mr A's TPN lines despite them continually becoming infected (not upheld);
• (c) staff failed to ensure Mr A received adequate nutrition (not upheld);
• (d) staff failed to clean Mr A's room properly and this led to him becoming infected with MRSA (no finding); and
• (e) staff failed to adequately communicate with Mr A's family (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Highland NHS Board (the Board):

• (i) remind staff of their responsibilities under the MRSA policy and ensure procedures are followed and audited for compliance; and
• (ii) remind staff to ensure a note is placed in the records where the patient has specifically refused the release of clinical information to relatives.

The Board have accepted the recommendations and have explained the action which has taken place since the complaint was raised.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of issues regarding her treatment and care following an operation for a vaginal prolapse.

Specific complaint(s) and conclusion(s)

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Board:

• (a) failed to provide full information about the potential side-effects of the operationinadequate information about potential side-effects of operation (no finding);
• (b) failed to provide adequate post-operative careinadequate post-operative care (not upheld);
• (c) failed to communicate clearly information to Mrs C about her symptomsinadequate communication about Mrs C’s symptoms (not upheld); and
• (d) failed to handle properly Mrs C's complaint (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board ensure their health professionals are aware of good practice in obtaining consent.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised concerns about a dentist (the Dentist)'s examination of her sons' teeth.  She also complained that, after raising this with the Dentist, she and her sons were removed from the Dentist's list.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Dentist:

• (a) unreasonably removed Mrs C and her sons from her list (not upheld); and
• (b) did not perform an adequate examination of Mrs C's sons' teeth (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

Although the complaint is not upheld, the Ombudsman has made a general recommendation.  The Ombudsman recommends that the Dentist reviews her procedures for handling removal of patients from her list, and that in future she takes into account the advice in any guidelines that are produced.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns that, following his father (Mr A)'s stroke in November 2004, his father became eligible for NHS funding of all his care in a Nursing Home rather than the limited funding he received from his local authority.  Ayrshire and Arran NHS Board (the Board) had not agreed to fund this care and Mr C raised a complaint that the matter had not been properly considered.

Specific complaints and conclusions

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

• (a) properly assess Mr A's eligibility for NHS funded Continuing Care (upheld); and
• (b) properly review Mr C's application for NHS funded Continuing Care (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i) undertake a retrospective, evidenced assessment of Mr A's continuing care needs and;
• (ii)ensure that where there is an application either for NHS Continuing Care Funding or to review a decision to refuse funding, the process for dealing with that application is explained to the applicant at the outset.

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