Health

Summary

C complained that the board failed to provide reasonable care and dental treatment to them over a period of several months. During clinical examinations, C raised concerns about experiencing pain from a particular tooth.

We took independent advice from a dentist. We found that while treatment provided by the dental practice was, in general, reasonable, there were some missed opportunities to further investigate the condition of the tooth in question. Further investigations would have been appropriate to help determine whether the tooth was the actual cause of the pain. We found that further information obtained at subsequent appointments would have helped confirm that C’s pain was the result of a localised infection. The board accepted that in retrospect, the pain was due to the tooth that was ultimately extracted. Given the missed opportunities to further investigate the condition of the tooth in question, develop a more appropriate diagnosis and potentially reduce prolonging C’s pain and discomfort, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the missed opportunities to further investigate the condition of the tooth in question, for the failure to develop a more appropriate diagnosis and potentially reduce prolonging C’s pain and discomfort. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Dentists should act in line with the Scottish Dental Clinical Effectiveness Programme's Management of Acute Dental Problems.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained that the practice failed to refer them for an x-ray following a fall, which contributed to a delay in diagnosing fractured vertebrae.

C attended A&E following their injury and then attended the practice a few days later (first consultation). C then had a GP telephone appointment the next day due to ongoing pain (second consultation), and subsequently attended the practice again in person some weeks later (third consultation). C complained that their symptoms were not fully investigated and an obvious bend in their neck was overlooked.

We took independent medical advice from a GP. We found that the practice’s actions at the first and second consultations were reasonable in relying on the outcome of the recent A&E assessment, and that an onward referral for x-ray imaging was not indicated at that point. We found, however, that C’s ongoing pain should have been considered persistent by the time of the third consultation, and that their spinal tenderness should have been regarded as significant. We found that these symptoms should have been regarded as ‘red flag’ symptoms (possibly indicative of a more serious pathology), and should have triggered onward referral for imaging assessment.

Instead, C was referred for physiotherapy following the third consultation. C subsequently contacted the practice on a fourth occasion to request that this referral be expedited. A GP received this message and concluded that C did not meet the criteria for an urgent referral. The GP did so without taking a history and/or examining C. We found that it was unreasonable to make this decision without evidence. If an examination had been arranged following this fourth contact by C, it may have given rise to an x-ray referral.

We concluded that the practice unreasonably missed opportunities to refer C for an x-ray at the third consultation, as well as at the time of C’s subsequent contact regarding the physiotherapy referral. On balance, we upheld this complaint. We noted the practice had already reflected extensively on their management of C and identified things they would do differently in future.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to refer them for further investigation following the third consultation, and for concluding that they did not meet urgent referral criteria without taking a history or examining C. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Patients should be referred on for appropriate investigation when they present with red flag symptoms. The practice should ensure that they follow relevant guidelines and that they are aware of and alert to red flag symptoms.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained about the end of life care that their partner (A) received at home from district nursing services during the final weeks of their life.

C complained that the nurses did not listen to their concerns about A’s deteriorating condition, that A’s condition was not adequately assessed and managed, and that they were not included in discussions about A’s care. C considered that there were missed opportunities to admit A for earlier hospice care.

We took independent advice from an advanced nursing practitioner. We found that the care provided to A was generally in line with recognised practice for end of life care, with review and prompt action around pain control and symptom management. However, we found that there were significant gaps in communication and clinical assessment which impacted on the care delivered to A.

While the nurses recorded C’s reported changes in A’s condition, this did not appear to have prompted any specific action or investigations. We found that there was a lack of clinical examination, and a failure to check and act upon C’s reports of excessive fluid in A’s legs. The board acknowledged that there was a failure to monitor A’s baseline observations when they began to deteriorate, and we found it concerning that this did not happen. The board also accepted that communication with A and C could have been better managed and they committed to raising this with staff. As A’s main carer, we noted that C’s views should have been central to care planning and to ensuring that the care being provided remained suitable as A’s condition changed. We found that there was an unreasonable failure to act upon C’s concerns and consider whether a need for hospice care was indicated. We therefore upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings identified. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Patients receiving end of life care at home should be appropriately assessed and monitored in line with their symptoms and any deterioration acted on. Patients and their carers should be communicated with effectively and their views appropriately taken into account.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained to the board about the treatment that they received from the board when they attended A&E on the advice of their GP. C had informed the GP that their back pain of three months had worsened over the week.

C reported concerns about the on-call doctor’s manner toward them. C also complained about the assessment and clinical decisions made, particularly that they were sent home despite experiencing a significant level of pain. C was later diagnosed with Cauda Equina Syndrome (CES, a collection of neurological symptoms caused by compression of the nerves at the end of the spinal cord) and required emergency surgery.

Summary

C complained that the board failed to provide appropriate care for their parent (A).

C said that the lack of care resulted in A falling from their bed, while the bedrails were in place. As a result, A fractured their hip. C said that staff had been made aware that A was confused a very disorientated at the time.

We asked the board to provide an explanation as to how A was able to fall from the bed if bedrails were in place. The information provided by the board showed that A had been found trying to get out of bed on two previous occasions. This led us to question what interventions were put in place to try and prevent a fall from happening and why this appears not to have been successful.

We took independent advice from a nursing adviser. We found that the lack of a proper assessment of A’s mental capacity and their previous attempts to climb out of bed contributed to the fall incident and that this was a significant oversight. Additionally, we found that the board failed to maintain accurate and appropriate records, particularly in relation to the 4AT (Rapid Clinical Test for Delirium Detection), on the two occasions that A was found trying to get out of bed, and the fall itself. We therefore upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings identified. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Patient records should be accurately completed, signed and dated with the appropriate level of information included, in accordance with the relevant nursing and midwifery standards.
• Patients should be appropriately reassessed when there is a change in their behaviour and, if bedrails are in use, consideration given to carrying out a reassessment of their use.
• Patients over 65 should be assessed in line with the board’s admission procedures including a 4AT so that a full assessment of the patient risk is achieved.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained on behalf of their spouse (A) about the care and treatment that they received from the board.

A initially presented with a locally advanced cancer which at the time of presentation had already spread to their lymph nodes. A underwent treatment, however, went on to develop progressive disease in their lymph nodes and also evidence of spread to the bone. While further treatment was given, A's general condition deteriorated and after a number of admissions to hospital, A died of a progressive cancer.

C raised concerns that the board had failed to provide reasonable, timely and appropriate medical care and treatment to A during their admission to the treatment centre.

We took independent advice from an oncologist adviser (cancer specialist).

We found that the treatment A had received conformed to current guidelines from the European Urology Association and Medical Oncology Associations, and overall, we found that the management of A’s care was reasonable and that there were no significant failings in relation to the care and treatment given to A. However, we found that, while there was little, if no, evidence that earlier CT scans would have influenced the final outcome, given the circumstances of A's case, the CT scans carried out could have been done sooner.

With regard to C's concerns about the way that A's prognosis was communicated to them, while we found that overall the communication had been reasonable, we acknowledged that the method of communicating A's diagnosis to them had not met their needs and we provided feedback to the board about this.

While we found that the majority of the care and treatment given to A was reasonable, given that the CT scans could have been done sooner, on balance, we upheld this complaint.

C also raised concern about the medical care and treatment given to A during their admission to hosptial. In particular, that there had been clinical failures to pay attention to which medications had previously failed, which led to the same medications being prescribed to A again. Also, that there had been an unnecessary delay in moving A to the hospice.

We took advice from an independent oncology adviser. We found that A had been treated with appropriate anti-cancer therapies and symptoms relieving treatments, that the choice of antibiotics had been reasonable and that there had been no unreasonable delay in transferring A to the hospice.

We considered that the overall care and treatment provided to A was reasonable. As such, we did not uphold this complaint.

C also complained that the nursing care and treatment given to A in the hosptial had been unreasonable. We took independent advice from a nursing adviser. We found that a number of aspects of the nursing care and treatment given to A had been reasonable and that, in particular, the nursing care provided for A had been delivered in a person centred way. However, we considered that it would have been reasonable to expect that a skin assessment to establish the extent of any skin damage would have been carried out and documented prior to A's move to the hospice, especially given that A was a high risk patient at end of life care. We considered that this aspect of A's nursing care was unreasonable and therefore on balance we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings identified in this case. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• In patients presenting with significant symptoms, the need for an urgent referral for a CT scan should be considered.
• Pressure area care should be given in line with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Clinical guidance CG179.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment that their parent (A) received from the board.

A and their partner (B) both contracted Coronavirus (COVID-19). A had a history of diabetes and had previously had a stroke. After contracting COVID-19, A began to display signs of delirium. Concerned for A’s welfare, B contacted the GP who in turn arranged for the COVID-19 team to visit at home. The COVID-19 team attended and recommended that A be admitted to hospital for review that day. A was discharged the same day.

A’s condition worsened at home and the COVID-19 team was called back to visit. A was readmitted to hospital, where their condition continued to deteriorate. A was transferred to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) where they later died. C considered whether it was appropriate for A to have been discharged home after the first hospital visit given the extent and nature of A's condition.

In response to the complaint, the board believed that the plan of care for A was appropriate, but recognised that communication with A’s family could be improved with respect to arrangements for A’s discharge.

Following the complaints response, C and family members met with representatives of the board to discuss concerns. The note of the meeting records shows that the board acknowledged and apologised that no phone call was made to obtain information about A’s circumstances at home. The board also recognised that the decision to discharge may have been queried had a consultant understood B was unwell at home. C disputes the account of the meeting and believed all present agreed with the position that A should not have been discharged.

We took independent advice from a geriatrician (doctor who specialises in treating older patients). We found that it was reasonable to determine that A was clinically fit for discharge. We noted that this was a complex situation and A had not stated concerns about the decision to discharge. We also noted that there was no indication in the records that, at the time of discharge, A’s family were unhappy with the decision made at the time. We therefore did not uphold the complaint. We did, however, provide some feedback to the board with respect to their complaints handling in this case.

Summary

C complained about the care provided to their late parent (A).

The practice visited in the morning and found them to be coherent and capable of declining a full examination. A's carers left around midday and did not have any specific concerns about A. By the evening, A's condition had deteriorated and they were taken to hospital. A died two days later.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser. We found that there was evidence of appropriate communication between the GPs and other professionals and agencies involved in A’s care. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment provided to their late adult child (A). A had been admitted to hospital from police custody due to cellulitis in their hand. A was monitored overnight and discharged the following day. A was readmitted several days later following a cardiac arrest. On resuscitation, a cannula (a tube that can be inserted into the body, often for the delivery or removal of fluid or for the gathering of samples) was found in A’s arm dated the day of their initial admission. A’s condition deteriorated and they died a few days later.

C was concerned that A’s mental health issues were not taken into consideration and that it had been unreasonable to discharge A without these being assessed. C also believed it was unacceptable for A to have been discharged with a cannula in place given A’s known drug misuse. C believed that these failings led directly to A’s death as they had used the cannula to administer drugs immediately before suffering a cardiac arrest.

The board had carried out an Adverse Event Review (AER) following C’s complaint. This found a number of failings in A’s care. It made recommendations to try and address these.

We took independent medical advice from a consultant in emergency medicine. We found that there had been a full investigation of the case. The key learning points had been identified and actions were being taken to reduce the likelihood of a similar incident occurring in future. There was no evidence of failings which had not been addressed by the AER.

We upheld C’s complaints due to the acknowledged failings in A’s care.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings in the care and treatment, and discharge processes, in relation to A’s admission to hospital. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained to the board about the care and treatment provided to their late parent (A) regarding hip problems they suffered.

A was admitted to hospital with worsening mobility having suffered a number of recent falls. Under the care of older people’s services they were reviewed by occupational therapy and received physiotherapy, before being moved to another hospital for rehabilitation. A month after being discharged, A was readmitted and underwent an X-ray CT scan. A was initially diagnosed with a broken femur. A underwent hip replacement surgery and passed away a month later.

C complained that despite being informed by the board that A had sustained a fracture of their right femur, possibly present some years prior, they were later told that A had not sustained a fracture. Nevertheless, A’s death certificate had recorded a fracture of the right femur as one of the causes of death. This confusion caused the family significant anxiety. In their complaints response the board concluded that junior medical staff had been responsible for misdiagnosing A and apologised for the miscommunication. They also apologised for the misdiagnosis having been included on A’s death certificate.

We took independent advice from a medical adviser with expertise in orthopaedics (treatment of diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system), and further advice from a radiologist (specialist in diagnosing and treating disease and injury through the use of medical imaging techniques such as x-rays and other scans). We found that while A did not have a broken femur, the board had failed to act upon a CT scan taken some years previously that showed A was suffering from significant arthritis which therefore went untreated over the subsequent years. Additionally, the board had emphasised the role of a junior doctor in misdiagnosing the fractured femur despite the involvement of more senior management in signing off on this diagnosis. In view of these specific failings, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings identified. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Care should be taken by staff to ensure that patient records are correct and as full as they can be. Where discussions have taken place what was said should be documented. A’s case should have been discussed at the board’s Radiology Events and Learning Meeting (REALM). If this had not happened they should happen in order to highlight the importance of reporting significant osteoarthritis as an incidental finding, if it has not been depicted on prior imaging.
• The board’s complaint handling monitoring and governance system should ensure that complaints are appropriately investigated and that failings (and good practice) are identified and learning from complaints are used to drive service development and improvement.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.