Fife Acute Hospitals NHS Trust
Health
This complaint concerned the removal of a patient from the GPs' list. The complainant was of the view that the GPs concerned acted unreasonably in removing him from the Practice's list of patients.
The account of the complaint provided by Mrs G was that in February 2001 her son was put on the waiting list for orthodontic treatment. Mrs G subsequently learned that the waiting time for this treatment is approximately three and a half years. Mrs G complained about the waiting time; she asked for an explanation or remedy for the situation. The Chief Executive of the Trust replied apologising for the lengthy waiting time and acknowledged that this was unsatisfactory. Mrs G sought an independent review of her complaint. The Convener refused her request on the ground that this was primarily a resource issue for which a reasonable explanation had been given.
The complainants, Mr and Mrs E, felt they had been removed from their GPs' list with insufficient justification after Mr E had complained to the practice manager about the treatment Mrs E had received from the reception staff.
The complainant, Mr J, put it that the Trust took an unreasonable length of time to diagnose his wife's bowel cancer resulting in her death.
The account of the complaint provided by Mr R junior was that on 22 March 2001 his father Mr R, aged 90, was admitted to Glasgow Royal Infirmary (the hospital) with a history of vomiting and diarrhoea. This resolved and he was discharged on 30 March. On 1 April Mr R was readmitted (to a different ward of the hospital) with diarrhoea and dehydration. He was diagnosed as having a clinical infection caused by Clostridium difficile but attempts to control this by the use of metronidazole (Flagyl - an antibiotic) failed. It was decided to change his treatment to vancomycin. This was prescribed on 20 April and Mr R junior was told it had to be made up specially by the hospital pharmacy which caused a delay. Mr R died during the early morning on 21 April.
The account of the complaint provided by Mr R junior was that on 22 March 2001 his father Mr R, aged 90, was admitted to Glasgow Royal Infirmary (the hospital) with a history of vomiting and diarrhoea. This resolved and he was discharged on 30 March. On 1 April Mr R was readmitted (to a different ward of the hospital) with diarrhoea and dehydration. He was diagnosed as having a clinical infection caused by Clostridium difficile but attempts to control this by the use of metronidazole (Flagyl - an antibiotic) failed. It was decided to change his treatment to vancomycin. This was prescribed on 20 April and Mr R junior was told it had to be made up specially by the hospital pharmacy which caused a delay. Mr R died during the early morning on 21 April.
Following the death of his wife in hospital, Mr G complained to Mrs G’s GP about the care and treatment provided to his wife by the Practice. Mr G was dissatisfied with the responses he received and requested an independent review. The Convener refused an independent review on the grounds that the complaint had been thoroughly and fairly dealt with through local resolution.
The complainant, Mr D, had been removed from his GPs' list after a telephone conversation with the receptionist during which Mr D insisted that the surgery arrange blood tests for his daughter. Dr E that she had removed him from her list because of the distress experienced by the receptionist after her telephone conversation with him and aggression shown to staff members was regarded by the practice as a breakdown in the doctor-patient relationship. Mr D requested an independent review of his complaint. He was informed that the Convener was turning down his request because a review had no authority to reverse the practice’s decision to remove him from their list and that his daughter had been treated with all reasonable care by the general practitioners within the practice.
The account of the complaint provided by the complainant, referred to as Mr A in this report, is that he attended his local Medical Centre to be weighed by the Practice Nurse. Mr A required to be weighed before consideration could be given to providing him with a repeat prescription for Orlistat, which was to help him lose weight. While he was in the Practice Nurse’s room, the first GP entered the room and said that as he had not lost sufficient weight no repeat prescription would be issued. A discussion ensued during which the first GP, without provocation, used offensive and unprofessional language towards Mr A.