Health

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.

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.