Health

Summary

Mrs C, who is an advice worker, complained to us on behalf of her client (Mrs A). Mrs A was referred to a gynaecology clinic, as she had been experiencing some loss of bladder control. It was agreed that Mrs A would have an operation to try to resolve this. However, after the operation Mrs A was left in pain, and with a feeling of great urgency to pass urine at times. Mrs C complained that Mrs A was not reasonably informed of the risks before the operation and that it had worsened her situation.

After considering Mrs A's clinical records and taking independent advice from one of our medical advisers, we found that Mrs A had been counselled appropriately about the risks and benefits of the operation. She signed a consent form that identified the risks and was given a patient information leaflet about the operation, which was clear and informative. This included information about the risk of long-term pain and the risk of developing irritable bladder symptoms.

Although it was clear that the operation had not been successful, we found that that it was reasonable for the board to carry out the procedure, which was performed appropriately and by surgeons with adequate training and expertise. We did not identify any failings by the board that led to the problems Mrs A experienced.

Mrs C also complained about the care provided to Mrs A after the operation. We found that her initial post-operative care was reasonable and appropriate. However, Mrs A had to wait too long for appointments and we found that the aftercare should have been provided in a more timely fashion. It was only when Mrs C complained on her behalf that an appointment with a consultant was brought forward, a complication was recognised and Mrs A was then referred to the pain clinic. Even then, the appointment with the pain clinic initially given to Mrs A was more than three months later.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• issue a written apology to Mrs A for the delays in providing appointments once the complication had been recognised; and
• confirm to the Ombudsman that they have learned lessons from this case and will ensure that, in future, patients who suffer complications after having this type of surgery do not face similar delays in getting appointments.

Summary

Mrs C had her gall bladder removed by laparascopic (keyhole) surgery. She complained that although she felt ill and breathless the board had insisted on discharging her, as she had only been admitted for day surgery. Mrs C also complained that when she was then re-admitted as an emergency, this was under the care of the respiratory medicine department rather than the consultant who had carried out the operation. Mrs C continued to have medical issues, which she blamed on the surgery, and about which she spoke to the consultant the month after her operation. Although she felt he was rude and abrupt, she said he agreed to see her in his clinic. However, despite a letter from her GP, she did not receive a letter until three months later, for an appointment the following month. Mrs C also said that the board’s response to her complaint was inaccurate and did not answer all the points she had raised.

After taking independent advice on this case from three medical advisers, we upheld only one of Mrs C's complaints. After considering her medical records, the advice we received was that the decision to discharge Mrs C after surgery was appropriate, as was the decision to readmit her under the care of the respiratory medicine department. However, it was not reasonable that Mrs C was not seen for over three months by the operating consultant, given that she had discussed her problems with him personally. We found that although the complaint response was delayed and contained some typographical errors, it had appropriately addressed all the points Mrs C raised.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• apologise for the failings identified in Mrs C's care; and
• review their procedures to ensure that following laparascopic surgery, patients are followed up appropriately.

Summary

Ms C, who is an advice worker, complained on behalf of her client (Mrs A) about a dentist. Ms C said the dentist failed to provide Mrs A with reasonable dental treatment when extracting three teeth. She said that he failed to remove a fragment of bone from Mrs A’s lower gum, resulting in infection, pain and discomfort, and that the follow-up treatment was not appropriate.

We obtained independent advice from our dental adviser. The adviser explained that fragments of bone can occur during the extraction process. They are quite often not seen until several days after the extraction and can come out themselves without any clinical intervention. The adviser said the fact that a fragment of bone remained after the extraction was not caused by inappropriate treatment, and that the dentist could not unreasonably fail to remove a fragment that was not evident to him at the time. The adviser said it seemed unlikely that the dentist would have identified a fragment of bone in Mrs A’s gum and then knowingly left it in place.

In terms of the follow-up treatment, the adviser said the records suggested that, on the whole, the treatment provided at two of the three follow-up appointments was reasonable. However, because of the dentist's poor record-keeping, it was not possible to say whether the treatment Mrs A received at the remaining appointment was reasonable. Because of this, although we did not uphold Ms C's complaint, we were critical of the dentist’s record-keeping.

Recommendations

We recommended that the dentist:

• reviews the Faculty of General Dental Practice clinical examination and record-keeping good practice guidelines and ensure that he follows these in future.

Summary

Mr C's GP referred him to hospital for a surgical opinion on the GP’s diagnosis of a hernia. When Mr C attended for his operation, a consultant surgeon examined him and decided not to operate as he could not detect a definite hernia. Mr C complained that the board failed to deal with his hernia appropriately. He was unhappy that he had spent money on transport to the hospital, and on accommodation in the local area, as he had moved away since being referred.

We looked at Mr C’s medical records and the information provided to him by the board, and obtained independent advice from our medical advisers. We found no evidence that the consultant surgeon misdiagnosed Mr C. Our advisers said that where there was uncertainty over a diagnosis, especially for a difficult to diagnose condition such as a small hernia, it would be unwise to proceed with surgery. We were, however, concerned that Mr C’s pre-operative assessment did not follow good practice or the board’s direct access hernia patient pathway. Nor could we find evidence that Mr C was warned that surgery might not take place when he attended the hospital. For these reasons, we upheld his complaint, and made a recommendation for a payment for the unnecessary inconvenience to which Mr C was put, linked to the costs of his visit to the hospital.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• apologise to Mr C for failing to provide a reasonable level of pre-operative care;
• make a goodwill payment to Mr C; and
• review practice in the hospital's handling of hernia cases, to ensure that patients are adequately assessed before surgery and, where appropriate, cautioned that surgery may not proceed.

Summary

Mrs C's son (Mr A) suffered from epilepsy. When Mr A began feeling increasingly unwell, his GP had requested a scan. However, the hospital consultant declined to carry this out. A couple of months later, a specialist registrar saw Mr A. He also requested a scan, but again, the consultant declined. The following year, Mr A's condition was worse and he was seen by another consultant who recommended a change in medication. However, within a few months, Mr A died suddenly. Mrs C believed that if Mr A had had a further scan, the outcome for him could have been different. She said insufficient investigations were made into his worsening condition and that he had been prescribed medication which made this worse.

We obtained independent advice from one of our medical advisers, who is a consultant neurologist (a specialist in diseases of the nerves and the nervous system), and carefully considered all the available documentation and the relevant clinical records. Our investigation found that, generally, the care and treatment given to Mr A was appropriate. The reason that he was not recommended for a further scan was that some years earlier he had had an MRI scan (Magnetic Resonance Imaging - a scan used to diagnose health conditions that affect organs, tissue and bone), which showed only some evidence of brain atrophy (wasting away). Because of this, and because there were no new neurological symptoms, it was not necessary to repeat the scan. The clinical records showed that Mr A had been given advice about his drug regime and that recommended doses were proportionate to his symptoms.

However, our investigation also revealed that, some years earlier, nursing notes had recorded an abnormal EEG (electroencephalography - a technique that records the brain's electrical activity). This was never picked up in Mr A's clinical notes and the EEG had not been carried out again, as our adviser would have expected in the circumstances. Similarly, after a specialist epilepsy nurse lost phone contact with Mr A, no action was taken to contact him. We noted that, although Scottish health guidelines suggest that these specialist nurses should have continuing involvement with epilepsy patients, there was no evidence that Mr A had been referred back to them for help or review. We, therefore, upheld Mrs C's complaint that Mr A's treatment had not been reasonable.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• formally apologise to Mrs C for the omissions; and
• emphasise to appropriate neurology staff, in accordance with the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network guidance, the importance for patients of the assistance of specialist epilepsy nurses.

Summary

Mrs C was referred to a hospital chest clinic in 2008 with a troublesome cough, breathlessness and wheezing. A diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (an airways disease) was considered, but excluded several months later following further investigations. A diagnosis of asthma was considered and Mrs C was prescribed treatment to see if this improved matters. Mrs C also had episodes of palpitations and her medical records noted that she had a faster than normal heartbeat (supraventricular tachycardia - SVT), and had been prescribed verapamil (a drug widely used to treat this) from 1991. When she was reviewed by the respiratory consultant in 2011, it was noted that she had different symptoms to the previous ones that might have been related to SVT. She was referred to a consultant cardiologist and tests were carried out. These did not show any abnormalities and the prescription of verapamil was stopped.

Mrs C complained that she was treated for asthma for two and half years when there was no definitive diagnosis, and prescribed verapamil for over 23 years without being routinely reviewed by the hospital cardiology department to update the diagnosis and consider treatment options that might be more relevant. Mrs C also said that the board failed to fully respond to her complaint, to respond within a reasonable time and to take appropriate action.

Our investigation took account of the information Mrs C provided, alongside her medical records, and we took independent advice from one of our medical advisers. The advice, which we accepted, was that both the diagnosis of Mrs C's symptoms and potential conditions, and the resulting treatment, were reasonable. In 2009, it appeared that Mrs C's symptoms were well controlled by treatment for asthma. As soon as it became apparent in 2011, however, that this was potentially exacerbating the symptoms of her fast heart rate, she was referred promptly to cardiology. In relation to the prescription of verapamil, we found that the care and treatment provided by the relevant consultants was reasonable. Our adviser said that where medication controls the symptoms, as in Mrs C's case, then it can reasonably be continued without regular review. As soon as her symptoms could be interpreted as relating to her heart, the medication was stopped and alternative treatment was considered. We did not, therefore, uphold Mrs C's complaints about her care and treatment.

We did uphold her complaint about the complaints handling. We were satisfied that the time the board took to deal with the complaint at first was reasonable. They responded within 20 working days and addressed three of the issues, saying that the consultant would address the remaining issues. The consultant then said that these would be difficult to put in writing and easier to discuss. As our adviser confirmed that the issues were extremely complex, we took the view that this was reasonable. In addition, the consultant followed up the discussion with a written record, which was good practice. The board, however, did not at first tell Mrs C that they could not address a complaint she raised about her GP practice, although they later told her about the practice’s position and arranged a meeting with them. We also found that the board failed to respond to Mrs C's complaint about the long-term prescription of verapamil, until we investigated this. Given the significance of the issue in her complaint, we criticised the board for this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• take steps to ensure that, in future, all elements of a complaint are responded to; and
• apologise to Mrs C for failing to fully address her complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about the care and treatment provided to him by the prison doctor. The prison doctor had diagnosed Mr C as having external piles (small lumps that develop on the outside edge of the anus), but Mr C disagreed with this diagnosis.

We took independent advice on this complaint from one of our medical advisers, who considered Mr C's medical records. The adviser told us that the symptoms reported by Mr C did indicate that he had external piles and because of that, the prison doctor's diagnosis and treatment were reasonable and appropriate.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that it took five months for him to see a dentist. He was dissatisfied with the board's response to his complaint, in that they did not tell him what had gone wrong or what they would do to ensure this did not happen again. After Mr C asked to see the dentist, the healthcare team gave him an acknowledgement slip advising that he would be placed on the waiting list. However, a member of staff lost Mr C's paperwork and he was not listed to see the dentist. When the health care team became aware of the problem, they placed Mr C on the waiting list and he was later seen by the dentist.

We were concerned that during our investigation the board sent us conflicting responses about the guidance they were using as a standard for treating prisoners. This showed that there was confusion for their staff in relation to the standards they applied. We noted, however, that since taking over responsibility for NHS care in prisons, the board aim to have routine patients seen by a dentist within ten weeks. They also apologised to Mr C for the delay in his case, and told us that they would introduce a new appointments system to reduce the likelihood of this happening again.

We were aware that at the time of the complaint the Scottish Government had developed draft guidance for a robust framework for oral health improvement and dental services in Scottish prisons. This says that prisoners will have access to a dentist within ten weeks (the current target timescale). Whilst the board had apologised for the delay, we concluded that it was unreasonable for Mr C to wait 22 weeks to see a dentist and we upheld his complaint. We were satisfied that the board were introducing a new system but considered that they should have explained to Mr C what had gone wrong and the improvements they were making, in order to reassure him.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• apologise to Mr C for failing to inform him that there had been an error in his paperwork being lost and the steps being taken to improve their appointment system;
• highlight to relevant staff that responses to complaints should contain information about what happened and any improvements identified, in line with the Scottish Government's complaint handling guidance; and
• provide a copy of their new guidelines once the Scottish Government's national guidance on oral health and dental services is published.

Summary

Mrs C's husband (Mr C) was referred to hospital by his medical practice because he was suffering from fatigue and shortness of breath on exertion. He had some tests, but it was not until almost five months later that he was diagnosed with lung cancer. Mr C died shortly after the cancer was diagnosed. Mrs C said that her husband had a complicated medical history, but she was concerned that there appeared to be a lack of urgency by the hospital in establishing the cause of his symptoms.

To investigate the complaint, we carefully considered all the relevant documentation, including the complaints correspondence and Mr C's medical records. We also took advice from one of our medical advisers, who is a consultant in respiratory medicine.

We upheld Mrs C's complaint. Our investigation found that there was a three week delay before Mr C was seen at the respiratory clinic and, later, it took four weeks for the GP specialist's urgent referral request to be seen by the hospital's consultant respiratory consultant, although the reasons for this could not be established. After Mr C was seen, there was then little urgency in dealing with him. Our adviser confirmed that although an earlier appointment would have led to an earlier diagnosis, the outcome for Mr C would not have been different. However, Mr C would have had more time for palliative care (care to prevent or relieve suffering), which would have alleviated his pain and discomfort.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• make a formal apology to Mrs C for the delay and lack of urgency; and
• ensure that, where cancer is suspected, there is a robust cancer pathway in place in accordance with the Scottish referral guidelines for suspected cancers.

Summary

Mrs C said that her husband (Mr C) first attended his medical practice in January 2012 complaining of breathlessness and low mood but that it was not until November 2012 that it was confirmed that he had lung cancer. Mr C died in December 2012 and Mrs C complained that the practice had unreasonably delayed in providing a diagnosis.

To investigate the complaint, we considered all the relevant documentation, including the complaints correspondence and Mr C's medical records, as well as obtaining independent advice from one of our medical advisers. We found that, throughout, the practice had acted reasonably and no areas of delay were identified. Our adviser said that Mr C had an extensive and significant medical history, some of which could have explained the symptoms he was experiencing. He explained that there were many causes for breathlessness and no set guidelines on how to investigate it. He said that, given Mr C's history and the fact that his examinations had been normal, the practice's approach was reasonable. He did note that, on occasion, it appeared that there was a long wait for hospital appointments, but this was not the fault of the practice, who tried to move them forward. The adviser also explained that it was regarded as good practice to approach diagnosis sequentially, particularly when the patient was not deteriorating, and said that the practice could have done little more to obtain an earlier diagnosis for Mr C.