Health

Summary

Miss C complained about the care and treatment received by her partner (Mr A) at University Hospital Ayr. Mr A attended the hospital for a urology review as he had been experiencing problems involving his testicles, perineum and groin area. Miss C complained that no cause could be found for his pain and that although he had previously undergone a procedure involving his scrotum, this would not cause the sharp pain about which he was complaining. Mr A was subsequently admitted to hospital as an emergency. A scan showed that there was no blood flow to his left testicle, and it had to be removed.

Miss C complained that Mr A had been discharged too soon and without being seen by the consultant. She also said that the consultant concerned had refused to do further tests to establish the cause of Mr A's problems.

We took independent advice from consultants in emergency medicine and urology. We found that Mr A's treatment in A&E was of a reasonable standard and in line with his presenting symptoms, and that he was admitted and referred to the appropriate specialist in a timely way. We also found that the surgery Mr A had was reasonable. However, the level of documentation justifying the consultant urologist's decision-making and the information given to Mr A to allow him to make informed consent was not in accordance with General Medical Council (GMC) guidance. Furthermore, Mr A received little in the way of explanatory information and he was not examined when he attended for review. We upheld this aspect of Miss C's complaint.

In response to Miss C's complaint to the board, Mr A was referred to a urologist in another area, which we found to be good practice. However, Miss C's complaint to the board was not handled within the relevant timeframe and we upheld this aspect of Miss C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• apologise formally for identified failings;
• ensure that the consultant urologist involved is made aware of the findings of this investigation and remind them of their obligations regarding note-taking and consent as per GMC guidance; and
• remind staff involved of their responsibilities in relation to the complaints process, and the importance of addressing complaints within the relevant time frame.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the medical practice failed to identify that her father (Mr A) had cancer. Mr A had multiple health issues and regularly attended the practice but it was not until the family eventually took him to hospital that he was diagnosed with an aggressive tumour. He died nine days later. The practice noted that there had been no change to Mr A's longstanding symptoms other than some worsening in the weeks before he died, and they did not consider that his cancer could have been detected much earlier or would have responded to treatment.

We took independent medical advice from a GP who noted that the practice had arranged relevant investigations including chest x-rays, scans and blood tests. Although Mr A's liver function test results were noted to have been abnormal in the month prior to diagnosis, the practice had already arranged a colonoscopy and the adviser did not consider that further tests were indicated at that stage. When the tests were repeated two days prior to diagnosis, they showed a significant deterioration and the practice took appropriate steps to upgrade an existing ultrasound scan referral to urgent. The adviser noted that the hospital may have separately arranged investigations themselves around this time when Mr A self-presented with his family. However, we found that the practice had by then already taken reasonable and prompt action when they identified the deterioration in Mr A's liver function results. We therefore concluded that the practice did not unreasonably delay taking steps to have Mr A's cancer diagnosed and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his wife (Mrs A) about aspects of the care and treatment she received at Ninewells Hospital and Perth Royal Infirmary following an injury to her shoulder. He complained that surgery was not carried out when the injury was first diagnosed and that when surgery was carried out, Mrs A was given inaccurate information about the reduction in her pain. Mr C also complained that Mrs A was not warned that general anaesthetic could cause memory loss.

We took independent advice from a consultant orthopaedic surgeon and found that the decision to initially manage Mrs A conservatively (without surgery) was reasonable practice. There was evidence to show that Mrs A had consented to surgery after she was informed of the appropriate risks.

We also obtained independent advice from a consultant anaesthetist in relation to Mrs A's concerns about not being warned about the potential risk of memory loss following general anaesthetic. They noted that it is not standard practice to discuss this with patients prior to surgery because it is not considered to be the type of risk that falls into either of the two categories set out in the General Medical Council's guidance on consent. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C, who works for an advocacy and support agency, complained on behalf of her client (Miss A). Ms C complained about the failure of GPs to follow up Miss A's abnormal blood results when she registered with the practice. Miss A had abnormal blood results when tested at her previous GP practice and as a result, she was diagnosed with hepatitis C (a virus that can infect and damage the liver, and can be transmitted to others through contact with infected blood) a number of years later. Miss A believed that had the practice kept the blood results under review when she moved into their area, the diagnosis of hepatitis C would have been made earlier and she would therefore not have suffered from other medical conditions.

The practice said that due to the passage of time, it was difficult to comment and that the GP who had seen Miss A had retired a number of years ago. The practice explained that there was a note that Miss A had had abnormal blood results at her previous practice but that the clinical picture was improving. However, they accepted that follow-up tests were not arranged. A GP had diagnosed that Miss A had Gilbert's syndrome (a genetic disorder where higher than normal levels of bilirubin, a substance found naturally in the blood, build up in the bloodstream causing jaundice).

We took independent advice and found that although there was an improvement in Miss A's condition initially, her blood results were still abnormal and that further tests should have been arranged by the practice. This had contributed to the delayed diagnosis of hepatitis C. We also found that although Miss A had abnormal blood results, her bilirubin level was not abnormal and as such the diagnosis of Gilbert's syndrome was not accurate.

Recommendations

We recommended that the practice:

• apologise to Miss A for the failings identified in this investigation.

Summary

Ms C, who works for an advocacy and support agency, complained on behalf of her client (Miss A). Ms C said that Miss A's medical practice failed to follow up her abnormal blood results, and that as a result she was subsequently diagnosed with hepatitis C (a virus that can infect and damage the liver, and can be transmitted to others through contact with infected blood) a number of years later. Miss A believed that had the practice kept the blood results under review, the diagnosis of hepatitis C would have been made earlier and that she would therefore not have suffered from other medical conditions.

We took independent medical advice and found that although there was an improvement in Miss A's condition initially, her blood results were still abnormal and further tests should have been arranged. As a result, this had contributed to the delayed diagnosis of hepatitis C. We therefore upheld Ms C's complaint. We also found that the practice procedure for the reporting of blood results had subsequently been updated and that the current process is appropriate and would highlight that action is required when abnormal results are identified.

Recommendations

We recommended that the practice:

• apologise to Miss A for the failure to arrange follow-up blood tests.

Summary

Mr C complained that the board failed to provide the results of a scan that he underwent at the Western General Hospital. He said that his GP had not been given the results of the scan, and that when he called the board he was given results over the phone by a secretary who had not been able to explain the results in full. He also complained about the board's handling of his complaint.

We took independent advice from a hospital consultant. We found that it was the responsibility of the consultant who ordered the scan to report the results back to Mr C, and that this was not done. Whilst there was some limited evidence that the consultant had notified the GP of the results, there was no evidence of what form this notification took. We found that when the results were viewed by the requesting consultant, a letter should have been sent to both Mr C and his GP. We therefore upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

In addition, we found that the board's response to Mr C's complaint contained several inaccuracies and upheld Mr C's complaint in this regard.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• ensure that this case is brought to the consultant's attention at their next annual appraisal for them to reflect on;
• reflect on this case and consider whether this was an isolated error or whether steps should be taken to ensure scan results are being communicated to patients in a timely manner;
• bring the findings of this investigation regarding the communication of test results to the relevant secretarial staff's attention;
• apologise for the failings identified with regards to their complaints response; and
• remind complaints handling staff of the necessity of providing factually accurate and non-contradictory responses.

Summary

Mr C complained that he was not warned about the possible specific side effect of developing cataracts (a clouding of the lens of the eye leading to a reduction in vision) when taking steroid drugs via an inhaler.

Mr C had been treated by his GPs and specialists for a number of years for respiratory conditions. He was prescribed inhalers and nasal drops, some of which were steroids. Mr C was diagnosed with cataracts on both eyes while on holiday overseas and had surgery there to remove the cataract from one eye. He was told by his surgeon that the cataracts had been caused by his steroid inhaler.

We took independent medical advice and found that although recognised as a possible side effect, cataracts were such a rare occurrence that it was reasonable that this would not have been specifically discussed with Mr C. Information was available about this in the patient information leaflet supplied with each new batch of the drug. Our view, therefore, was that the actions of the practice were reasonable and in line with relevant General Medical Council guidance to GPs.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment she received at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh when she has a hysterectomy (surgical removal of the womb). Mrs C was concerned that the surgery should not have gone ahead given that she had been suffering from a cold and cough a couple of weeks earlier. Mrs C became significantly unwell after surgery and further tests identified that she had internal bleeding and a blood clot. Emergency surgery was carried out and she also developed a chest infection.

We took independent medical advice and found that there was evidence to show that Mrs C was fit for surgery with no evidence of active infection or respiratory problems. We considered that the hysterectomy was performed appropriately and that the problems she experienced after surgery were recognised complications of the surgery, rather than failings in care. Whilst we did not uphold the complaint, we were critical that there was a lack of clear documentation to demonstrate that Mrs C was fully appraised of all the relevant risks and complications associated with hysterectomy. Therefore, we made two recommendations to the board in order to address the matter.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• ensure that the staff involved in Mrs C's consent process reflect on these findings to ensure that all recognised risks of hysterectomy are fully discussed with patients and documented on the consent form prior to surgery; and
• consider providing patients with written information where appropriate in relation to hysterectomy.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care and treatment provided to his wife (Mrs A) when she was admitted to the Western General Hospital for radiotherapy to treat a spinal condition. Mr C said that nursing staff failed to provide reasonable care in relation to the taking of blood samples, pressure ulcers and use of a pressure-relieving mattress, and said that the failings caused Mrs A pain and distress.

We took independent advice from a nursing adviser. We found that the standard of nursing care in relation to blood sampling and pressure ulcer care was reasonable, but that there were shortcomings in relation to record-keeping and the explanation about the mattress and we made recommendations in relation to this. However, on balance we were satisfied that the standard of nursing care and treatment on the whole was reasonable and we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• take steps to ensure the record-keeping shortcomings are addressed including that they are raised with relevant staff; and
• inform this office of the safeguards in place to ensure that mattresses requiring inflation do not deflate inadvertently.

Summary

Ms C was admitted to the Royal Edinburgh Hospital. She complained that her care and treatment during her two-day admission was not reasonable. She also complained about record-keeping.

Ms C said that during her admission, an earlier misdiagnosis of personality disorder was relied upon and a more recent diagnosis of post partum psychosis (the onset of psychotic symptoms following childbirth) was ignored. Ms C also said that her medical records did not reasonably portray where she wished to go after her discharge.

During our investigation we took independent advice from a consultant psychiatrist. We found no evidence that the board had relied upon the diagnosis of personality disorder that had been previously made, nor that they had ignored the more recent diagnosis of post partum psychosis. We also found that the care and treatment provided to Ms C during her admission was reasonable. Finally, we found that medical records relating to where Ms C wished to go after her discharge were reasonable. We therefore did not uphold Ms C's complaints.