Health

Summary

Miss C complained to us about the failure of the board's radiology department to manage their waiting list in a reasonable manner. She had phoned to cancel an appointment at the Royal Alexandra Hospital for a procedure and was told that as a result she would be placed at the bottom of the waiting list.

Miss C complained to the board that this was not in line with national guidance on waiting times, which stated that the patient should only be placed at the bottom of the waiting list if a reasonable offer (an offer of two or more appointment dates) was declined. In Miss C's case, the board had placed Miss C at the bottom of the waiting list after only one offer and she felt that the board were treating her unfairly.

We found that in terms of national guidance, this was a reasonable approach as long as staff were acting in the spirit of the guidance and provided reasonable explanation for not following part of the guidance.

We found that the board were acting in the spirit of the guidance and that the reason for not making a reasonable offer was reasonable in view of the short timescales for carrying out the procedure. We therefore did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the treatment provided to her at Glasgow Royal Infirmary when she sustained a left distal radius fracture (fracture of a bone in the forearm, close to the wrist). Mrs C said that the splint provided for her injury was too big, and that the delay in this being rectified resulted in her having to have an operation to correct the fracture when it displaced. She also felt that her medical history had not been taken into account when treatment was being provided for her arm injury.

During our investigation, we obtained independent advice from two clinicians, an A&E consultant and an orthopaedics consultant. We found that providing a splint for Mrs C's injury was reasonable, and there was evidence that suggested attempts were made in A&E to make sure it fitted as well as possible. We were advised that an injury such as Mrs C's should not be fully immobilised and that the splint being too big, whilst it may have been uncomfortable, would not have had an effect on the fracture position. We also found that Mrs C's medical history was noted in the clinical records and was reasonably taken into account. We did find that at Mrs C's follow-up appointment, as her fracture had minimally displaced, she should not have been discharged and we made a recommendation related to this. However, we found that this did not cause any significant injustice to Mrs C, and therefore we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• feed back the findings of this investigation to relevant staff, in particular the adviser's comments on the appropriateness of discharge when there is a change in fracture position.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment given to her father (Mr A) after his referral to Glasgow Royal Infirmary. Mr A underwent a colonoscopy (his bowel was examined with a camera on a flexible tube), a number of polyps were removed and a likely cancer of the rectum was biopsied. He was discharged home but began to feel unwell and was later admitted to hospital as an emergency. He had a perforated bowel which required repair.

Mrs C complained that Mr A was not given appropriate advice about the risks of his initial surgery or about what to do if his health deteriorated after being discharged. She further complained that Mr A had not been fully advised of his state of health by the clinician who was treating him. In particular, she complained that he had not been told that his cancer had returned, for which he would be given no treatment as agreed by a multi-disciplinary team who discussed his case. Mrs C said that as a result, the family was not prepared when Mr C died, seven months after his initial referral to the hospital.

We took independent advice from a consultant general and colorectal surgeon. We found that before his operation, Mr C had been given clear information about the possible risks, including of the possibility of a perforation. Although Mr C became unwell following the procedure, we found that he had been given written advice about what to do in such circumstances. We therefore did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

We found that while Mr C had been told that his cancer had been removed and that, unlike most colorectal cancers, showed no further involvement in his liver, lungs or abdomen, he had not been told that, unusually, it had spread to his bones. In their reponse to Mrs C's complaint, the board said it was difficult to achieve the right balance in terms of how much information to give to patients and their families. In this case, Mr A had already undergone multiple surgeries and the multi-disciplinary team decided not to provide Mr A with chemotherapy because of his very weak and frail condition. However, we established that he and his family should have been told that the cancer had spread. This would have been in line with the General Medical Council guidance on effective communication. We therefore upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• make the relevant staff aware of the outcome of this investigation;
• apologise for the failure to inform Mr C and his family of a multi-disciplinary team meeting and the decision it reached; and
• remind the clinician concerned of the relevant General Medical Council guidance.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the board failed to provide her husband (Mr A) with appropriate wound care following his vascular surgery at Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, both at the hospital and after he was discharged home. She said the board failed to respond appropriately when she and Mr A reported concerns about the way Mr A's wound was dressed. She said Mr A should have been referred to doctors to assess his wound and the possibility of re-suturing prior to his discharge from hospital.

We obtained independent nursing advice. The adviser said that the medical records indicated that Mr A's wound was healing well on discharge from hospital and when seen at home by the district nurse and it appeared that after this point, his wound began to dehisce (a surgical complication when the edges of a wound no longer meet).

The adviser considered that the board responded appropriately when Mr A and Mrs C reported concerns about the way Mr A's wound was dressed and that Mr A should not have been referred to doctors to assess his wound and the possibility of re-suturing prior to his discharge from hospital. The adviser said the nursing notes indicated that Mr A's wound was clean and dry on discharge from hospital and therefore there was no need for further review or suturing. We concluded that the board did not fail to provide Mr A with appropriate wound care following his vascular surgery. We therefore did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the cataract surgery she underwent at Gartnavel General Hospital. Mrs C received cataract surgery from a trainee ophthalmologist, under the supervision of a consultant ophthalmologist. She said that her eye was painful after the operation, and appeared smaller than the other eye. Mrs C subsequently attended her optometrist, and the consultant ophthalmologist for a follow-up some weeks later. She received an ultrasound and subsequently received a further examination from a second consultant ophthalmologist.

Mrs C raised a number of concerns about the surgery. She also said she felt the operation was performed by a doctor with insufficient experience. The board said the cataract surgery had been performed appropriately. They considered Mrs C had an abrasion that had resolved, and that the drooping appearance of Mrs C's eye was due to the lid speculum (the instrument that allowed the surgeons to hold her eye open). They said both consultant ophthalmologists found no evidence of significant complications.

We took independent advice from a consultant ophthalmologist. We found the evidence suggested the board provided appropriate cataract surgery. We considered the board's explanations of the problems Mrs C had encountered after surgery were reasonable and accurate, and did not evidence any failings on the part of the board. We also found the surgical trainee had an appropriate level of experience to perform the operation. While we did not uphold Mrs C's complaints, we made a recommendation relating to informing patients that operations may be performed by a trainee.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• consider changes to their standard consent form to note that operations may be performed by a trainee.

Summary

Mr C complained about care he and his wife (Mrs C) received from their medical practice. This related to the prescribing of medication to Mr C and a repeat blood test, the investigation and treatment of symptoms suffered by Mrs C and invitations sent regarding appointments.

We sought independent medical advice on the complaint. The adviser had no concerns about the medical care provided by the practice and we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

However, during the investigation concerns were raised about the practice's complaints handling and a particular doctor's approach to complaints. For that reason we made a number of recommendations to address these concerns.

Recommendations

We recommended that the practice:

• provide this office with a copy of the practice's complaints handling procedure demonstrating compliance with the Patient Rights Act and government guidance 'Can I Help You?';
• reassure this office that the practice has a robust system for recording and storing complaints documentation; and
• discuss the findings of this investigation with the doctor's appraiser.

Summary

Ms C attended a dermatology clinic and a podiatry clinic before she was diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma (an uncommon cancer that develops in the network of vessels and glands spread throughout the body). Ms C considered that she had displayed symptoms that should have brought about an earlier diagnosis and complained that the board had delayed in making a diagnosis.

We took independent medical advice. We found that Ms C's medical records did not suggest that dermatologists had missed symptoms of lymphoma. We also found that a podiatrist would not be expected to recognise these symptoms. In view of this, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment of her late father (Mr A) who was admitted to Queen Elizabeth University Hospital with pneumonia. While Mr A's health improved at first, he contracted sepsis (an infection in the bloodstream or tissues). Although he was given antibiotics, he died a few days later. Mrs C raised concerns about the medical and nursing care and queried why antibiotics were not started earlier. Mrs C also complained that she was not properly recorded as Mr A's power of attorney and that staff did not include her in important discussions about his future care.

Staff from the board met with Mrs C on two occasions and apologised for some aspects of care. However, they considered the medical care was reasonable and said staff did not consider the power of attorney was relevant as Mr A still had capacity when he made decisions about his care.

After taking independent medical and nursing advice, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint about medical care. We found staff appropriately administered antibiotics when Mr C's blood tests showed signs of infection. We upheld Mrs C's complaint about recognition as power of attorney, as staff had incorrectly recorded 'N/A' in relation to power of attorney on Mr A's admission notes. However, we found that it was reasonable for staff not to include Mrs C in the discussions about Mr A's care decisions as Mr A had capacity at that time and asked the doctor not to discuss these decisions with Mrs C.

We found that the overall nursing care had been reasonable. Although the board acknowledged there had been issues with call buzzers during the admission and a catheter bag that was not placed on a stand, they had taken appropriate action in response to these issues.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• apologise to Mrs C and her family for the failings identified; and
• ensure they have adequate processes in place to monitor that power of attorney is being accurately recorded on admission.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care that was provided to his wife (Mrs A) at the Princess Royal Maternity Hospital when she was admitted for the induction of labour. Mrs A gave birth to a healthy baby. However, Mr C was concerned that Mrs A did not receive appropriate care prior to being moved to the labour ward. He considered that she was not properly assessed and that as a result, she did not have access to appropriate pain relief.

We took independent midwifery advice. While we found that the initial care Mrs A received was reasonable, the advice we obtained was that following this, there was no evidence that assessments were carried out in line with the relevant guidance, particularly the board's own Latent Phase of Labour guideline. The adviser considered that there had been a failure to recognise that Mrs A had progressed into established labour and that she had missed out on the appropriate level of monitoring as a result. The advice we received also highlighted some issues around the way that Mrs A's pain was managed. We therefore upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• apologise to Mr C and Mrs A for the failures identified by this investigation;
• draw the comments of the adviser regarding monitoring to the attention of relevant staff for reflection;
• raise awareness of the Latent Phase of Labour guidelines to ensure that they are applied appropriately; and
• draw the comments of the adviser on planning pain relief alongside the patient to the attention of the relevant staff.

Summary

Mrs C complained to us about the care and treatment her son (Mr A) received at Queen Elizabeth University Hospital before his death.

Mrs C said that the hospital had not been equipped to meet Mr A's needs. We took independent advice from a nursing adviser. We found that there had been a delay in obtaining an appropriate specialist bed for Mr A. There were also problems in relation to Mr A's bed sheets and in obtaining an appropriate hoist for him. We upheld this complaint. However, the board had apologised to Mrs C for these failings and we were satisfied that they had taken reasonable steps to try to prevent these problems from recurring.

Mrs C also complained about the nursing care provided to Mr A. We found that there had been problems with the meals provided to Mr A and with the buzzer being out of his reach. Again, we upheld Mrs C's complaint but we were satisfied that the board had apologised to Mrs C for these failings and had taken steps to prevent them recurring.

Mrs C complained that there had been no explanation as to why Mr A had not been offered dialysis. She said that dialysis had been mentioned to Mr A over several days as a possible procedure, but that this was then postponed. We took independent medical advice on this aspect of Mrs C's complaint. We found that the decision that Mr A did not require dialysis had been reasonable, but that the communication of this to him and his family had been inadequate. Mrs C complained that there had not been a reasonable standard of communication with family members. In regard to this, the adviser was critical of the record-keeping. We upheld these aspects of Mrs C's complaints.

Finally, Mrs C complained that reasonable arrangements were not in place for the storage and security of personal belongings. We upheld this complaint, as we found that there had been some confusion about where Mr A's belongings were being stored in the hospital. In addition, there was no evidence that Mrs C had been informed of the outcome of an investigation into Mr A's missing watch.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• provide us with evidence that steps have been taken to ensure that medical records are maintained appropriately;
• issue a written apology to Mrs C for the failure to communicate adequately with Mr A and his family;
• ensure that there are adequate systems in place in the hospital for the safe storage of patients' belongings; and
• ensure that Mrs C is informed of the outcome of the investigation into Mr A's missing watch.