Health

Summary

Mrs C complained that a dental hygienist carried out a scale and polish procedure inappropriately and that this caused extensive damage to her teeth. We took independent dental advice. We found that there was no evidence to suggest the hygienist failed to carry out the procedure appropriately, or that this had caused damage to Mrs C's teeth. We did not uphold this complaint.

Mrs C also complained that the subsequent treatment and advice she received from a dentist was unreasonable. We were advised that the records indicated that appropriate treatment was provided and correct advice offered. We did not uphold this complaint.

In addition, Mrs C complained about the board's response to her complaint. She felt that they unreasonably disregarded the evidence of the further treatment that she received, which she considered supported her concerns that the scale and polish procedure damaged her teeth. She was also unhappy with the dentist's indication that they offered fluoride treatment for sensitivity when she said it was offered to address the damage to her teeth. We were advised that the further treatment Mrs C required was due to her teeth being worn and not as a result of any unreasonable prior treatment. We were also advised that fluoride treatment is usually offered to treat sensitivity or decay, and not damage to teeth such as that described by Mrs C. We therefore concluded that the board's response was reasonable and we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that when the board decided to change follow-up appointments for some cancer patients from face-to-face appointments to phone appointments, the decision was notified to her in an inappropriate way, that the decision was unreasonable and that there was an unreasonable delay in providing a copy of the discharge letter sent to her GP.

Mrs C received treatment for cancer which was thought to be of low risk of recurrence. She was told she would be followed up for a period of three years at six-monthly clinic appointments. However, before the sixth appointment she was sent a letter informing her that the appointment had been changed to a phone appointment. The letter was undated, on plain notepaper and had no signature or indication of the author.

Our investigation found that the decision to move to phone appointments was reasonable and in line with guidance from the Department of Health. However, the manner in which Mrs C had been notified of this change was unacceptable. The board explained that the consultant in charge of Mrs C's care had drafted a letter to inform patients of the change. It was then circulated to the multi-disciplinary team for review and once approved was sent to Mrs C without being transferred to headed notepaper and having the date, the name of the consultant and their signature added. Since Mrs C's complaint the letter had been amended.

Mrs C did not receive a copy of the GP letter until several weeks after her phone appointment. We considered this and other administrative failures which occurred during the complaints process to be unacceptable.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• issue a written apology for the failings identified during this investigation; and
• review the way complaints correspondence is dealt with to ensure that relevant enclosures are provided and standard letter templates are amended to reflect the situation with the complainant at that time.

Summary

Ms C complained about the care her mother (Mrs A) received from her medical practice.

Mrs A had been experiencing diarrhoea for a number of weeks. The practice had prescribed medication, requested a stool sample and offered referral for a colonoscopy (imaging of the bowel). Mrs A later died in hospital.

We sought independent medical advice. The adviser was satisfied the practice had provided a reasonable standard of care. We therefore did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf of her sister (Ms A). Ms A attended at A&E at Queen Elizabeth University Hospital as she had slumped to the side and had facial weakness. She was discharged with a diagnosis of 'non-organic causes'. Four days later Ms A re-attended the hospital following referral by her GP and at this point was diagnosed with having had a stroke. Mrs C complained that no scan had been carried out on Ms A's first presentation at A&E and that had it been, the stroke may have been diagnosed earlier. Mrs C also complained that staff had relayed to the family that Ms A's symptoms were possibly due to drug or alcohol consumption.

During our investigation we obtained independent medical advice. We found that appropriate tests and assessments had been carried out on Ms A during her first presentation at A&E and that her medical history had been reasonably taken into account. We found that a scan was not clinically indicated at this point and that the likely diagnosis of non-organic causes was reasonable. Overall we found the care and treatment was reasonable. We were, though, critical that staff had relayed to the family that Ms A's symptoms were possibly due to drug or alcohol consumption, however we noted that the board had previously apologised for this. We did not uphold this complaint, but we made a recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• draw to the attention of A&E staff the importance of not discussing possible causes of symptoms with family whilst investigations within the department are ongoing.

Summary

Miss C complained that staff at the Assisted Conception Service at Glasgow Royal Infirmary failed to provide her with appropriate in vitro fertilisation treatment (IVF) and failed to communicate appropriately with her. IVF is where an egg is removed from the woman's ovaries and fertilised with sperm in a laboratory. The fertilised egg is then returned to the woman's womb to grow and develop.

Miss C's concerns included that during four referrals she was not once told that she was ineligible for treatment because she was a smoker. Miss C said she also attended various appointments at the service with an egg donor, only to be told at the last appointment that the donor was unsuitable because she was also a smoker.

We obtained independent medical advice from a consultant in reproductive medicine and surgery. The adviser said the IVF treatment provided to Miss C by the board was reasonable. However, the new Scottish Government Access Criteria for NHS-funded treatment for all NHS boards had already been introduced and this set out that smokers were no longer eligible for treatment. Miss C and her partner attended three appointments at the service over a nine-month period before they were finally advised that they were ineligible for treatment because they were both smokers. We were critical of the board in this regard.

The evidence also suggested that Miss C and her partner attended an appointment at the service in which a proposed donor was put forward but the eligibility of the donor under the new access criteria was not discussed.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• take steps to ensure that relevant staff and patients attending the clinic are fully aware of the new Access Criteria;
• provide us with a copy of their revised patient leaflet on egg donor treatment which includes information on the Access Criteria; and
• provide Miss C and her partner with a written apology for failing to advise them of the new Access Criteria at a specific appointment.

Summary

Mrs C complained to us about the care and treatment that her mother (Mrs A) had received from her medical practice before her death. Mrs C considered that Mrs A should have been admitted to hospital earlier and that her death could have been prevented.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser. We found that the examinations carried out by the GPs and the treatment plan put in place for Mrs A had been reasonable. A urine infection had been treated appropriately with antibiotics and it had been reasonable to delay a blood test until she finished the antibiotics. The clinical entries in her records were of a reasonable standard and were in line with guidance from the General Medical Council.

We also found that on the final occasion Mrs A was seen by the GPs, the treatment given to her in relation to her chest symptoms had been reasonable and in line with the relevant guidance. However, her condition deteriorated later that day. She was admitted to hospital and died on the following day. There was no evidence that Mrs A's death was caused by or hastened by the GPs' actions or that it could have been prevented. When Mrs A saw the GPs, there had been no indication that she should be admitted to hospital.

We found that the care and treatment provided to Mrs A had been of a reasonable standard and we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the medical practice after they removed his family from the practice list for being outwith the practice boundary. Following a home visit to Mr C's father-in-law, the practice had advised that they felt the distance they had to travel presented a potential safety risk. This had led them to audit the practice list and they had decided to remove all patients outwith their boundary.

Mr C advised that, although his family was outwith the practice boundary, they had been registered there for many years following a complaint against their previous practice. He considered that this meant they should be allowed to remain on the practice list.

We found that the practice had clearly explained the reasons for their decision and given reasonable notice of the removal of services. We sought independent advice from a GP adviser, who was satisfied that the practice had complied with the provisions set out in the General Medical Services Contract for the removal of patients from the practice list, and that it was within their discretion to remove patients who were outwith their practice boundary. We accepted this advice and did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care and treatment provided to him at Grampian Royal Infirmary following his diagnosis of prostate cancer. Mr C said that he had not been provided with all the information necessary for him to give informed consent for the prostate surgery he had undergone. Mr C said that the board had failed to provide him with a test result which showed that the indicator used to measure the cancer's activity had declined.

The board said that Mr C had been managed and advised appropriately. They accepted that he had not been provided with the test result, but said this was not required for him to have given his informed consent. Additionally the board noted that Mr C had had a number of detailed discussions with his clinicians about his treatment options.

We took independent medical advice on the treatment provided to Mr C. The adviser said that Mr C's management and treatment were in line with the appropriate clinical guidelines. It noted that Mr C had delayed his treatment as he had wished to travel abroad during it. During this trip, a test of his cancer indicators had shown a marked rise. The advice noted that the test Mr C was not informed about showed a lower level of this indicator. The medical decision to operate on Mr C was based on the assessment of a scan of his prostate, and a subsequent examination of the cancer showed it to be more serious than previously thought. The advice said this supported the decisions made by medical staff.

We found that the test level was not the determining factor in deciding whether Mr C should have undergone surgery. We found that for informed consent, Mr C needed to be provided with sufficient information to understand the reason for his surgery, the risks and benefits of the proposed treatment and the alternatives available to him. The evidence showed that this had been done and that the treatment Mr C was provided with was the appropriate one. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about the decision to stop his medication in prison. He said that he had been wrongly accused of concealing it in his mouth when it was given to him under supervision by nurses. He complained to us about the way in which he was supervised when taking the medication. We took independent medical advice on Mr C's complaint. We found that the way in which he had been supervised was reasonable. The decision by medical staff to stop the medication was also reasonable given their concerns that Mr C was not using the medication in line with his needs. We did not uphold these aspects of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained to us about the response he had received from the board to his complaint. He said that this incorrectly stated that he had concealed medication four times in four months. Mr C's medical records showed that he had been caught concealing medication on three occasions. We upheld this aspect of his complaint.

Finally, Mr C complained to us that the board had failed to treat his ongoing pain effectively. We found that the care provided to Mr C in relation to pain after the medication was stopped had been reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C's partner (Mr A) was admitted to the A&E department at Forth Valley Royal Hospital, where he died. Mr A's mobile phone was not listed among his valuables and could not be found. Ms C made a formal complaint to the board but the phone could not be located. Ms C said that the phone contained images of her late partner and their child that could not be recovered.

Our investigation focused on the efforts made to locate the phone and/or to find out where and when it had gone missing. We were satisfied that, although ultimately unsuccessful, the board took reasonable actions to try to locate the phone.