Health

Summary

Mrs C suffered hearing loss following minor oral surgery at Perth Royal Infirmary. She complained that the board failed to provide appropriate treatment and failed to adequately explain the risks of the procedure she received.

The board said Mrs C received appropriate treatment. They said the procedure was performed correctly and they considered hearing loss was not a recognised complication, and was unpredictable. They said Mrs C was seen by various specialists, who investigated the complication. The board also considered the risks of the procedure were adequately explained, as the risks Mrs C complained about were unknown and diminishingly rare.

After receiving independent advice from an oral and maxillofacial surgeon, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. We found the care provided was appropriate, taking into account the complication could not reasonably have been predicted by the clinicians. We found the board acted appropriately in investigating the complication. We also considered the board did not fail to adequately explain the risks of the procedure, as the risks in question were exceedingly small. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C's husband (Mr A) suffered a suspected stroke at work. An ambulance was called. Mrs C complained that there was an unreasonable delay in an ambulance attending. She was also unhappy that the caller was not properly informed that there were no ambulances currently available and, later, that there was going to be a delay in the ambulance attending.

We took independent advice from a specialist in emergency medicine. The adviser found that the categorisation of the call was reasonable and that, while there was a delay in attending, there are times when demand will exceed capacity and that at these times, it will not be possible to provide a response within an ideal timescale. Therefore, while we accepted that there was a delay, we did not consider that the delay was unreasonable. We also accepted the adviser's view that it was reasonable that initially the caller was told that the ambulance would be there as soon as possible and, in relation to the further call, that it took four minutes before the ambulance arrived, so giving further detail to the caller was not necessary. We therefore did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained on behalf of their daughter (Miss A) regarding the dental care and treatment she received from the board. Mr and Mrs C complained that Miss A's anxiety was not taken into account whilst the board were attempting to remove two of her teeth over several dental appointments, and that it was decided that the dental treatment was not necessary.

We took independent dental advice and found that the care and treatment provided to Miss A had been reasonable and the board had made many attempts to acclimatise Miss A to receiving dental care. In addition, we found that whilst it had been reasonable for the board to pursue treatment over several months, it was reasonable that they eventually decided not to carry out the treatment as the benefits of treatment no longer outweighed the risks of Miss A's anxiety becoming worse. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained to us about the care and treatment provided to her late father (Mr A) in Western General Hospital and St John's Hospital.

We took independent advice from a consultant physician and a nurse. Though we found Mr A's medical treatment reasonable, we identified a number of other concerns. In particular, we found that communication of Mr A's prognosis was not carried out reasonably with Mr A or his family. We also had concerns about the adequacy of record-keeping by nursing staff in relation to Mr A's stay in St John's Hospital. We were also concerned that no arrangements had been put in place for a member of Mr A's family to travel with him in the ambulance when he was transferred from St John's Hospital to hospice care.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• apologise for the failure to properly communicate with Mr A and his family with regards to his prognosis and who his consultant was;
• take steps to ensure communication between staff and families is properly documented;
• ensure that relevant staff are made aware of our comments in relation to communication of prognosis;
• take steps to ensure complete daily nursing records are properly kept at all times;
• apologise for the failure to properly document nursing care provided to Mr A; and
• consider putting in place specific guidelines for allowing family members to travel alongside patients in ambulances.

Summary

Ms C complained about the care and treatment given to her father (Mr A) at the Western General Hospital. Mr A, who had cirrhosis (scarring of the liver as a result of continual, long-term damage), deteriorating liver function and liver cancer, was admitted to the hospital for a head scan to investigate possible brain metastasis (a cancer that has spread from its primary site).

Ms C considered that staff gave Mr A inappropriate sedation, which rendered him unconscious, and failed to provide him with appropriate medication for alcohol withdrawal. Ms C believed this led to a sudden deterioration in Mr A's condition and his subsequent death in the hospital.

We took independent advice from a consultant physician experienced in the management of liver disease and cancer of the bile ducts. We found that parts of Mr A's care and treatment were reasonable, in particular that there was no undue delay in carrying out Mr A's head scan and that the palliative care given to Mr A was appropriate.

However, the adviser identified failings in relation to the sedation and medication given to Mr A, in the assessment of his alcohol dependency, and in treating his ongoing constipation. The adviser also considered there were shortcomings in parts of the board's alcohol withdrawal plan (AWP). However, the adviser concluded that despite the failings identified in Mr A's care and treatment, his death was not caused or hastened by these failings. We accepted this advice. Given that our investigation found failings in Mr A's care and treatment, we considered this to be unreasonable and upheld Ms C's complaint.

In the course of our investigation, the board told us they accepted there had been a lack of documentation relating to the sedation administered to Mr A, for which they had apologised.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• apologise to Ms C and her family for the failings in Mr A's care and treatment;
• urgently review and update the AWP, taking account of the comments of the adviser and the relevant National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Guidelines, in relation to the sedation and medication given to patients and the use of validated scores for the assessment of alcohol dependency;
• ensure the comments of the adviser are shared with the relevant staff and acted upon; and
• provide evidence of the action taken to prevent a recurrence of the lack of documentation relating to the sedation administered to Mr A.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment provided to her mother (Mrs A) when she attended her GP practice complaining of breathlessness and collapse. During this period, Mrs A also had three admissions to hospital. Shortly after her third admission to hospital, she suffered a heart attack and died. Mrs C said that the practice failed to take Mrs A's symptoms seriously and delayed in taking appropriate action. She also said that the practice should not have prescribed a certain medication in light of Mrs A's heart condition.

We took independent advice from an adviser who specialises in general practice. We found that while the standard of medical care in relation to Mrs A's symptoms was reasonable, there were shortcomings in relation to a referral to hospital and the prescription of medication. While these shortcomings did not contribute to Mrs A's death, we upheld the complaint because of the prescription of medication that should not be given to patients with heart conditions.

Recommendations

We recommended that the practice:

• ensure the relevant GP reviews the issues relating to the medication prescribed, including its contraindications;
• review their systems for sending urgent referrals to ensure there are no avoidable delays; and
• apologise for the failings this investigation identified.

Summary

Mrs C's father (Mr A) was treated with radiotherapy for cancer of the tongue. Following his treatment, Mr A was cared for in the community with regular reviews at a joint cancer clinic and input from dieticians in another health board. He also received speech and language therapy (SALT) as part of the cancer clinic for about six months, and was then referred back to the other board for ongoing SALT care.

In the 18 months following his treatment, Mr A had increasing difficulty swallowing and suffered from recurrent mouth ulcers and pain. He also had several short hospital admissions with bleeding from the mouth. He was subsequently admitted to hospital (in another health board) in June 2014 with weight loss, decreased ability to swallow and stridor (noisy breathing caused by a narrowed or obstructed airway). He underwent endo-tracheal intubation (insertion of a tube to maintain an open airway to the lungs) and was transferred to St John's Hospital (for intensive care and ear, nose and throat (ENT) investigations), and then to the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh (for gastrointestinal investigations). Mr A suffered a major haemorrhage (bleeding) from the throat and died in hospital.

Mrs C complained about Mr A's care during this period, and raised concerns that clinicians failed to adequately respond to Mr A's mouth pain, malnutrition and weight loss, as well as infections in his mouth. Mrs C also raised concerns about care and communication during the hospital admissions in June 2014.

After taking independent advice from an oncologist, a consultant in general medicine, an ENT surgeon and a SALT therapist, we upheld three of Mrs C's four complaints. We found that, although Mr A had regular reviews and involvement of appropriate clinicians in his care, there was a lack of integration and cohesion in the team's approach, which meant that Mr A's symptoms were not adequately addressed. We also found failings in relation to communication during Mr A's final admissions, although we found that the medical care during these admissions was reasonable.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• feed back our findings to the staff involved for reflection and learning;
• use Mr A's experience as a learning tool to promote patient-centred care and provide us with evidence of this;
• review their processes for ensuring joined-up post-treatment care for patients with head and neck cancer;
• apologise to Mrs C and her family for the failings identified in our investigation;
• feed back our findings on communication to the nursing and medical staff involved for reflection and learning; and
• demonstrate that the incident of the missing Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh records has been investigated and reported, and provide details of any resulting action.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment provided to her mother (Mrs A) when she was a patient at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh. Mrs A suffered from breathlessness and collapse and had three admissions to hospital.

During her first admission to hospital, tests showed that Mrs A had pulmonary oedema (fluid on the lungs that can indicate heart failure). After Mrs A's second admission to hospital several months later, she was followed up by the respiratory clinic and referred to the cardiology team after further tests showed a heart condition. Mrs A continued to suffer from breathlessness and episodes of collapse. Shortly after her third admission to hospital, Mrs A suffered a heart attack and died.

Mrs C said that staff unreasonably failed to notice the problems with Mrs A's heart and provide appropriate treatment within a reasonable time and that the failure to treat Mrs A led to her death.

We took independent advice from a specialist in cardiology. We found that the board missed an opportunity to diagnose the cause of pulmonary oedema, which had been identified during Mrs A's first admission to hospital, and that as a result Mrs A's heart condition was not diagnosed within a reasonable time. This in turn meant that there was an unreasonable delay in referring Mrs A to the cardiology team for further assessment and treatment. However, it was unclear whether an earlier diagnosis would have led to a different outcome, due to Mrs A's medical history. It was our view that a potential opportunity for further treatment was missed and we therefore upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• provide a plan detailing the changes they have made to ensure that appropriate tests and referrals to cardiology are undertaken within a reasonable time;
• confirm the learning gained as a consequence of this complaint and provide details of how this has been passed to and considered by relevant staff; and
• apologise to Mrs C for the failures this investigation identified.

Summary

Mr C told us he waited too long to receive medication for a rash he developed and was unhappy that he had received tablets, rather than ointment or cream, and that this had been discussed with the nurse the previous day.

We found that Mr C had received his medication within roughly 30 hours of asking to see a nurse. He did not receive his medication the same day because, by the time the nurse had discussed his case with a doctor, the deadline for pharmacy orders that day had been missed. Mr C received his medication the following day.

We were satisfied that the treatment suggested, in tablet form, was reasonable. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Miss C, an advocacy and support worker, complained on behalf of her client (Miss A) that the board failed to provide Miss A with appropriate orthopaedic treatment based on the symptoms she presented with and that they inappropriately treated Miss A less favourably as Miss A has a disability.

Miss A suffered an injury to her shoulder. Miss C raised concerns about a decision by the board's orthopaedic surgeons not to operate on Miss A, including whether the surgeons took into account the views of Miss A's carers and managed her pain appropriately. Miss C also raised concerns about a second opinion provided by another orthopaedic surgeon, who also considered it would not be appropriate to treat the injury surgically.

The board said the care and treatment provided at Monklands Hospital and Hairmyres Hospital was based on the surgeons' assessment of the high risks of surgery and limited likely benefits. The board said this was based on the clinical situation at the time and that Miss A was not inappropriately treated less favourably by reason of disability.

After receiving independent advice from an orthopaedic surgeon, we did not uphold Miss C's complaint. We found it was reasonable of the board's surgeons to have considered there were high potential risks and a limited potential for improving the injury through surgery. We also found that the board appropriately involved Miss A's carers in the decision and managed Miss A's pain reasonably. We found that the board's surgeons were conscious of Miss A's disability in reaching their decision not to operate, but that this was appropriate given the significant impact potential complications would have on Miss A.