Health

Summary

Ms C complained about the communication between her grandfather (Mr A), who had prostate cancer, and the medical practice. Mr A was cared for by the practice at home, on a GP-led ward and while he was in a nursing home. Mr A died ten days after his admission to the nursing home. Ms C complained that the practice had failed to communicate appropriately with Mr A in relation to his cancer diagnosis and treatment options, despite the practice having access to this information.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser. They noted that Mr A was being seen by a consultant urologist (a clinician who treats disorders of the urinary tract) and that it was the urologist's responsibility to discuss Mr A's cancer diagnosis and treatment options with him, not the GP's. We therefore did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

The adviser noted that there was a delay in referring Mr A for an ultrasound scan and that the national referral guidelines for suspected cancer had not been followed. We therefore made a recommendation in relation to this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the practice:

• ensure the relevant GP familiarises themselves with the national guidelines for cancer referral and considers identifying this as a learning point for their annual appraisal.

Summary

Mrs C complained about a decision taken by the board to cancel her heart surgery and the lack of communication to her about this decision. She was also concerned that her complaint had not been dealt with appropriately because members of the complaints team had been involved with the decision to cancel her surgery.

We took independent advice from a consultant cardiologist. We found that there were appropriate reasons for the surgery to have been postponed until an independent review was sought to endorse Mrs C's management plan.

However, we found the communication in relation to the postponement of the surgery to be unreasonable. The board apologised to Mrs C that she was not informed beforehand that a further clinical meeting would be held. We also considered that the board should have sought Mrs C's input in relation to the independent review and informed her that there was a possibility it would delay her surgery.

We did not find that there had been a conflict of interest in the complaints staff handling of Mrs C's complaint about the cancellation of her surgery. The decision to cancel the surgery was taken by relevant clinical staff involved in her care. We therefore concluded that her complaint was investigated appropriately.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• draw our findings abut the failure to adequately communicate the decision to postpone the surgery to the attention of the multi-disciplinary team involved in Mrs C's care; and
• apologise for failing to seek Mrs C's input in relation to the decision to obtain an independent review.

Summary

Mrs C complained that her husband (Mr C) did not receive a reasonable standard of care from the practice. Mr C suffered from a number of health conditions, including asthma, and passed away from sudden cardiac arrest whilst he was a patient at the practice. Mrs C felt that the practice did not investigate Mr C's condition urgently enough, and said that there had been a sequence of failed attempts to diagnose and treat Mr C.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser. The adviser noted that the practice had investigated Mr C's condition within a reasonable timeframe and with the appropriate level of urgency. The adviser said that appropriate investigative tests had been arranged and concluded that the care Mr C received was reasonable. We accepted the adviser's comments and we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who works for an advice and support agency, complained about the care and treatment of his clients' late daughter (Miss A). Miss A attended the practice on a number of occasions from May 2014 with symptoms including a persistent cough, sore joints, fatigue and weight loss. A number of possible diagnoses were considered and investigated but Miss A's symptoms persisted. In October 2014 following an out-of-hours attendance, Miss A was admitted to hospital and diagnosed with endocarditis (a rare and potentially fatal infection of the inner lining of the heart). Miss A passed away in hospital a few weeks later. Her parents raised concern that a window of opportunity had been missed to diagnose Miss A. They felt that there was a delay in the practice arranging appropriate investigations and referrals.

The practice met with Miss A's parents and carried out a significant event analysis. The practice considered the care provided was reasonable, although they identified some learning points for improvement including improving continuity of care and having a lower threshold for investigatory blood tests in young people with persistent symptoms.

After taking independent medical advice we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. We found the practice had arranged appropriate investigations in view of Miss A's symptoms, including seeking advice from Miss A's former specialist to check for any connection between her symptoms and another ongoing condition and making referrals to hospital specialists. The adviser explained that Miss A's symptoms varied over this time and appeared more in keeping with a respiratory problem (which the GPs appropriately investigated). The adviser considered symptoms indicating a possible problem with the heart were first documented at the out-of-hours admission in October 2014, so it was not a failing that the practice did not investigate this possibility earlier.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way in which his pain relief medication was handled by the prison health centre and that the doctor refused to see him in private.

Mr C had been prescribed pain relief for pain in his leg. This was later stopped and an alternative medication prescribed. However, due to concerns that Mr C was failing to take the medication in the way it was prescribed, this medication was also stopped and further alternatives, including anti-depressants, were suggested.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser. We found that, when reviewing Mr C's medication, the health centre had acted in line with Scottish national guidelines on the management of chronic pain and on prescribing. We considered the health centre's actions to be reasonable given the assessments carried out for Mr C.

The board told us that there were no records of Mr C asking to see health centre staff in private. We considered that in a secure environment, it would not be unreasonable for Mr C to be accompanied at health centre appointments. We saw evidence of only one occasion on which Mr C had been accompanied and that this was reasonable. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C had surgery on his prostate at Forth Valley Royal Hospital and he subsequently experienced a common complication of the procedure. He complained that he was not told in advance that this complication would be permanent and he considered that the information he was provided suggested it would only be temporary. He said he would not have gone ahead with the procedure if he had realised that the complication was irreversible.

The board noted that the potential risks were explained to Mr C before the procedure and were listed on the consent form which he signed. They also noted that he was given a patient information leaflet, which stated that three out of four men would experience the complication in question. However, Mr C stated that the leaflet said the complication would only last a few weeks.

We obtained advice from a consultant urologist, who was not critical of the consenting process and considered that Mr C was in a position to provide informed consent. They noted that the leaflet did not state that the complication would only last a few weeks. They considered that it was implicit in the leaflet that the complication could be permanent, however, they said it could benefit from being changed so that this is stated explicitly. We agreed that the leaflet did not state that the complication was temporary. However, we noted that it did refer to some other side effects as being temporary. Given that there is a 75 per cent chance of the complication in question occurring following surgery, and as it is often permanent, we considered that this position should be made clearer in the board's information leaflet. On balance, we upheld the complaint and made some recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• issue a written apology to Mr C for the failure to make it clear in the information leaflet the likelihood of the complication of his surgery being permanent; and
• clarify in the information leaflet the likelihood of the complication being permanent.

Summary

Mr C complained that a GP practice did not properly maintain the medical records of his wife (Mrs A) and as a consequence, when she was admitted to hospital she was given medication which led to serious side effects. He further complained that a member of staff spoke to him inappropriately and told him that by stopping his wife's medication he could cause Mrs A's death.

We took independent general practice advice and noted that while Mrs A's medical records showed that a conversation with Mr C had taken place where he said that he was stopping her medication due to his belief that it caused side effects, they did not record a change to her medication. This was because Mrs A had the capacity to make decisions about her treatment and any changes could only be made after discussion with her. Whilst the records noted a terse conversation with Mr C about his wife's medication, there was no evidence that he had been spoken to inappropriately. It was clear that the repercussions of Mrs A stopping taking her medication had been clearly explained to Mr C. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the length of time his wife (Mrs A) spent in Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary. He also complained that before giving medication to Mrs A, staff had not asked him which medication Mrs A was taking prior to her admission.

Mr C also said that the medication prescribed to Mrs A had a detrimental effect on her, physically and mentally, and that the tests she underwent after her admission were unnecessary.

We took independent advice from a consultant geriatrician. The adviser noted that because Mrs A was able to tell staff about her medication, there was no requirement for staff to discuss it further with Mr C. The adviser also found that the admission and the tests subsequently undertaken were appropriate and reasonable. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained to us about the treatment they received at an out-of-hours centre where they took their baby on the advice of NHS 24 as he was not feeding well and was blue around his lips. There was a wait to see a GP and the baby went pale and struggled to breathe. The baby was seen urgently by a GP who examined him through his clothing and told Mr and Mrs C to take the baby to the A&E department at Crosshouse Hospital in their car. On arrival at the hospital, the baby stopped breathing and had to be resuscitated. The baby remained in hospital for three days. Mr and Mrs C felt that the GP should have given their baby oxygen and arranged for an ambulance transfer to hospital.

We took independent advice from an adviser in general practice medicine and concluded that the GP had carried out an inadequate examination of the baby as they did not remove the baby's clothing. In addition, we noted that the GP had maintained that they did not administer oxygen to the baby as it would have delayed the referral to hospital. We found that as oxygen was available at the out-of-hours centre, the GP should have administered it to the baby. We also found that it was inappropriate to have asked Mr and Mrs C to have transported their baby to hospital without clinical support. We upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• apologise to Mr and Mrs C for the failings in care and treatment which have been identified during this investigation;
• ensure that the GP discusses this complaint with their GP appraiser as part of their yearly appraisal; and
• ensure that the GP considers whether there is additional learning in relation to the initial management of patients with unstable blood pressure. The GP may benefit from the clinical support group in this regard.

Summary

Mr C complained that he was not prescribed medication to treat high blood pressure and that during a home visit a GP did not diagnose a deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in his leg.

Mr C had a knee replacement operation in December 2014 and requested a home visit in January 2015 as he was suffering from pain and swelling in his leg. A GP attended and examined Mr C's leg but did not find any obvious signs of DVT. A week later, Mr C had a post-operative check on his leg and the DVT was discovered and he was admitted to hospital for treatment.

Our investigation included taking independent advice from a medical adviser who was of the view that the examination carried out by the GP was appropriate and that there were no recorded signs that would have suggested DVT. The adviser stated that DVTs can develop over time and that the signs are difficult to identify in the early stages. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Following his treatment for the DVT Mr C was referred to the anti-coagulation clinic to monitor his blood, and he was prescribed Warfarin (an anti-coagulation medication) to reduce the risk of further clots for six months. During this time Mr C stopped taking the medication to treat his high blood pressure. When he was advised by the clinic to stop taking the Warfarin, Mr C requested a prescription for his blood pressure medication from the GP which he stated was not provided for seven days. The records showed that the prescription was issued on the day it was requested and we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.