Health

Summary

C underwent a bowel operation. They were told that scarring from the surgery would affect their ability to start a family in the future. C attended the board's fertility clinic and asked for fertility preservation treatment. This was denied on the basis that this treatment was only being offered to cancer patients at that time. C complained that they were denied access to this treatment, despite it being approved for other patients who had had the same surgery.

Following their surgery, C experienced complications that ultimately led to them developing sepsis and requiring further surgery. C attended their local A&E, but was discharged home after an examination. C complained that they were discharged despite showing clear signs of postoperative complications and infection.

We found that, although C had been advised that fertility preservation treatment was only being considered for cancer patients, this was not the reason that they had been denied access to this treatment. Rather, a National Complex Case group had reviewed C's case and concluded that they would have alternative options for starting a family in the future and that fertility preservation was, therefore, unnecessary. We found that the reasons for the board's decision in this respect was reasonable and did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

With regard to C's attendance at the A&E, we found that reasonable investigations were carried out to check for infection. There was no obvious sign of infection at that stage. However, we were critical of the board for failing to identify that C was displaying signs of postoperative complications. Staff failed to carry out an abdominal examination. We noted that C should have been urgently referred for follow-up investigations with their surgeon and the board failed to do this. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

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

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Share this decision with A&E staff with a view to ensuring that patients describing post-operative complications like this (where clinical examination does not rule out there being a complication) are discussed with, or referred to, their surgical teams.

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 their late parent (A) was allowed to discharge themselves against medical advice. C considered that A was not fit to make this decision and that A's mental capacity had not been appropriately assessed.

We took independent advice from a consultant geriatrician (a specialty that focuses on the health care of elderly people). We found that no formal assessment of A's capacity was carried out when they were noted to be agitated, confused or not-orientated during their admission. We found that a senior doctor did not review A's decision-making capacity at the time that A expressed the wish to discharge themselves.

Therefore, we upheld C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to carry out a formal assessment of A's capacity when they were noted to be agitated, confused or not-orientated during their admission and for failing to ensure a senior doctor reviewed A's decision-making capacity at the time that they expressed the wish to discharge themselves. 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 decision-making capacity should be kept under review and if their clinical condition changes (such as agitation, confusion, disorientation) this should prompt further review in line with the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000.
• Where there is evidence that the patient has experienced confusion and agitation during their admission, as in this case, senior doctors should take steps to assess the patient's decision-making capacity at the time they express the wish to discharge themselves.

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 client (A) who underwent a cystoscopy (bladder examination using a narrow tube-like telescopic camera). C said that the procedure had life-altering consequences for A, causing bleeding for nine days and leaving them permanently incontinent and susceptible to ongoing urinary infections.

C complained that the board had no urology (a specialty in medicine that deals with problems of the urinary system and the reproductive system) specialists available over the period of A's procedure and that this caused a delay in recognising the symptoms A was experiencing and their significance.

C submitted a complaint to the board regarding A's experiences. C said that, whilst the board apologised to A, they provided little explanation as to what happened or any potential treatment options that may have been available to A.

We found that A's medical history meant that they were at an increased risk of complications such as bleeding and incontinence following surgery. We were critical of the board for a lack of evidence of A being made aware of these risks when consenting to the surgery. We also found that, whilst the board were aware that there would be no specialist urological support available within the hospital following A's surgery, this was not communicated to A. Support was available from a neighbouring health board, however, we found that the board's staff did not seek their input as early as they could have when A began to show signs of postoperative complications. We upheld this aspect of C's complaint.

We also found that there was a lack of accurate record-keeping with regard to A's care at Borders General Hospital and upheld this aspect of the complaint.

We were satisfied that the board handled C's complaint reasonably and did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to A's family for the issues highlighted in our decision. 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:

• That the board conduct a review of the information provided to patients prior to surgery and take steps to ensure patients are fully informed before providing their consent.
• That the board remind urology staff of the importance of maintaining clear and detailed patient records at all times.

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 provide appropriate care and treatment to their late child (A). A had a lump removed from their eye lid which was subsequently diagnosed to be cancerous. A went to see their doctor with severe pain in their left arm, which moved to their right arm and neck. A was prescribed painkillers and referred to physiotherapy. A returned from a family holiday and, still suffering from severe pain which had worsened, saw another doctor. A's painkillers were changed and they were referred to physiotherapy.

After a further consultation, A was referred for an x-ray which identified that A's C6 vertebrae had collapsed and that there was a cancerous tumour. A died a few months later.

C complained that doctors at the practice failed to respond to A's symptoms in a reasonable manner given A's history of cancer. C complained that it took A to attend the practice on a number of occasions before appropriate treatment/investigations were undertaken. C believed that had doctors taken account of A's previous history, A would have received appropriate treatment sooner. A considered that the practice failed to investigate and respond to their complaint appropriately.

We took independent advice from a medical adviser. We found that the practice's consultations with C were reasonable. There was no unreasonable delay in the decision to refer C for an x-ray. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

With respect to the complaints handling, we found that there was a misapprehension on the practice's part about the handling of the complaint which resulted in a failure to communicate with C in accordance with their complaints handling procedure. However, the practice had investigated the complaint and provided an accurate and detailed response within a reasonable timeframe and, on balance we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. We provided feedback to the practice on their obligations with respect to complaints handling.

Summary

C's spouse (A) had long term health conditions. A attended a hospital appointment with C in relation to A's health and was told by a clinician that a CT scan (computerised tomography) dating from the previous year showed A had a sticky heart valve (when a valve does not fully open to allow enough blood to flow through). This was the first time that A and C had been told of any heart problem, and A had not undergone any treatment for heart valve problems in the past. Shortly after this, A was examined at hospital and on this occasion found to have a heart murmur. C complained to the board about not being told of the sticky heart valve. In their response, the board said that they could find no evidence in the records of A having been diagnosed with any form of heart problem prior to the detection of a heart murmur.

A later died and following this, C complained to the board about what they considered was a failure to disclose heart problems sooner and provide timely treatment. C was dissatisfied with the board's response to their complaint and asked us to investigate.

We took independent advice from a cardiology adviser. We did not find evidence that the board unreasonably failed to inform A that they had a heart valve condition or that the board unreasonably delayed treating A for a heart valve condition. We therefore did not uphold either complaint.

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment they received from the board. C experienced pain and discomfort when eating and suffered from gastro-oesophageal reflux (stomach acid travelling up towards the throat). C's gastroenterologist (a physician who specialises in the diagnosis and treatment of disorders of the stomach and intestines) ordered a barium swallow test (BST, a special type of X-ray test where barium is swallowed which shows up clearly on an x-ray to help diagnose problems with swallowing and the oesophagus). The radiologist (a doctor who specialises in diagnosing and treating disease and injury through the use of medical imaging techniques such as x-rays and other scans) who reviewed the images reported them as normal. C complained about the care and treatment provided by the gastroenterologist and the radiologist's interpretation of the BST.

We took independent advice from a consultant radiologist and a consultant gastroenterologist. We found that there were small osteophytes (bony lumps that grow on the bones of the spine or around the joints) in the spine on the BST images. However, these were small and insignificant. We found that images had been thoroughly reviewed by the radiologists and that there was no demonstrable compression of or leakage from the oesophagus. We also considered that the suggestion to change C's medications was reasonable and good clinical practice. The BST showed that no further investigations were required. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.

C also complained about how the board responded to their complaint. We found that the complaint response may not have been as in depth as C would have preferred, and that the conclusions of the medical staff were not what C was hoping for, however that did not mean the response was unreasonable. There was a delay in providing a complaint response to C, however we found that these were caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and from a further submission of information by C. We found these explanations to be reasonable and did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.

Summary

C complained about treatment provided by the board to their spouse (A) who was initially admitted to University Hospital Monklands with a fractured leg before being transferred to Wishaw General Hospital for further management. A's condition subsequently deteriorated, in response to which they received a full dose of Tinzaparin (anticoagulant). As A showed no improvement, they underwent an exploratory laparotomy (a surgical incision into the abdominal cavity, for diagnosis or in preparation for major surgery). A few hours later, due to further deterioration, A underwent a further laparotomy. During this procedure, significant bleeding and an injury to A's spleen was identified. A splenectomy (a surgical operation involving removal of the spleen) was then performed. A's condition did not improve and they died shortly after.

We firstly obtained advice from a consultant orthopaedic (conditions involving the musculoskeletal system) surgeon. We found no failings in relation to the orthopaedic care provided to A. We then obtained advice from a consultant general surgeon. We found that while it could not be definitively said how the tear to the spleen identified at the second laparotomy had been caused, it was possible that this may have been caused some time between commencing closure of the abdomen at first laparotomy and the second laparotomy. However, we also noted that A should not have received a full dose of Tinzaparin before it was established whether they would need surgery, as this was irreversible and greatly increased the risk of bleeding during surgery. The surgical adviser told us that the dose of Tinzaparin administered prior to surgery intensified the bleeding caused by the injury to A's spleen and contributed to A's death, although they may still have died from the underlying cause of their acute illness that could not be identified during post mortem examination. We upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for unreasonably administering a full dose of injectable Tinzaparin to A before establishing whether they would require a laparotomy to explore the cause of their abdominal pain and deterioration. 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:

• Clinical staff should be aware that full-dose injectable anticoagulation should be withheld until it is clear that the patient does not require an operation due to the bleeding risk. In the event, a pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis is identified.

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 a failure to diagnose their late partner (A)'s spinal cord cancer when they attended Wishaw General Hospital. They attended the Accident & Emergency Department and were referred on to the medical team for an urgent MRI scan for a suspected malignant spinal cord compression (MSSC, MSCC can happen when cancer grows in the bones of the spine or in the tissues around the spinal cord). However, this was subsequently changed to a CT scan, the result of which was normal, and A was discharged. A attended a private neurology (the science of the nerves and the nervoussystem, especially of the diseases affecting them) appointment the following week, where arrangements were made for an urgent hospital admission and a tumour in the spinal cord was diagnosed. A was left confined to a wheelchair following surgery and died around ten months later. C complained that, in not carrying out an MRI scan, the board failed to adhere to national guidance on MSCC management.

We took independent medical advice from a consultant radiologist (a specialist in the analysis of images of the body), who advised that it is normal practice to initially investigate any patient with a history of prior malignancy and suspected MSCC with an MRI of the whole spine. We, therefore, considered that it was unreasonable in A's case for the board to have carried out a CT rather than an MRI scan. It was noted that there was limited MRI scanner availability the day A presented, however, guidance allows for an MRI scan to take place within 24 hours. We found that an MRI scan should have been undertaken the following day and this omission was unreasonable. Had the MRI scan taken place, the spinal tumour would have been detected earlier. We were unable to say whether this would have had an impact on A's overall prognosis. Therefore, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failure to conduct an MRI scan prior to discharging A. 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:

• NHS Lanarkshire's guidance on the management of MSCC should be reviewed to ensure that it is in line with NICE guidance. The findings of this investigation should be shared to ensure relevant learning for staff.

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 us about the care and treatment that they and their two children had received from a dentist. They said that they were told by the dentist that they and the children did not have any cavities, but when they attended another dentist, they were told that they had cavities and needed fillings. One of the children also needed crowns and experienced an abscess.

We took independent advice from a dentist. We found that the dentist complained about had failed to take bitewing X-rays (detect decay between teeth and changes in the thickness of bone caused by gum disease) for C and their children, which was unreasonable. There were also failings in relation to documentation. Whilst it was reasonable that one of the children was told that they had no cavities, we found that based on the evidence available, C and the other child had cavities that needed treatment when they attended the dentist.

We also found that the abscess experienced by one of the children was not avoidable, however, the dentist did not follow the relevant guidance on treating the abscess and gave the child antibiotics with no justification for their prescription. There was also no evidence available to demonstrate that the dentist discussed and explained treatment plans to C on all occasions. Given these failings, we found that the dentist's practice fell below the expected standard and upheld complaints about the care and treatment provided to all three patients.

C also complained to us about the way in which their complaint had been handled. We found that the dentist had not responded to C's concerns regarding their own care and treatment, or that of one of the children. Consequently, we found that the dentist had not handled C's complaint in line with the NHS Complaint Handing Procedure and we also upheld this 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:

• Bitewing x-rays should be taken in line with the relevant guidance. (Selection Criteria for Dental Radiography, FGDP).
• Clinical notes should be recorded in line with the relevant standards (4.1, Standards for the Dental Team, GDC & Clniical and Examination & Record Keeping Standards (FGDP)).
• Communication with patients and/or their guardians, and conversations regarding consent, should be carried out and documented in line with the relevant standards (Principles 2 and 3, Standards for the Dental Team, GDC).
• Diagnosing and treating abscesses should be in line with the relevant guidance (Management of Acute Dental Problems Guidance, SDCEP).
• Radiography reporting should comply with the relevant regulations.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints should be responded to in line with the NHS Complaints Handling Procedure.

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 parent (A) who had stage one oesophageal cancer at the time of the complaint. A was admitted to hospital via the A&E and later diagnosed with pulmonary embolism (PE, a blockage of an artery in the lungs).

C complained that the board delayed in diagnosing the PE and that the care and treatment they provided to A was subject to delays and unreasonable. C was concerned that A had been incorrectly treated as a palliative patient when their cancer was not advanced and that should not have impacted the care A received.

The board apologised for the delay in diagnosing PE and for the delays to A's care that happened whilst they were an in-patient e.g. delay to x-ray being carried out. The board considered various aspects of A's care, such as, when they decided to use a nasogastric (reaching or supplying the stomach via the nose) feeding tube and the action they took to manage A's sepsis, to be appropriate at the time.

We took independent clinical advice from advisers with relevant experience. We concluded that the board failed to diagnose the PE when they should have, that they failed to carry out the x-ray when it should have been done, and that they delayed starting antibiotics to treat suspected pneumonia. We considered that if these delays did not happen, it is likely that A would not have needed to be admitted to a high dependency unit for care. We noted that the decision to use a nasogastric feeding tube was taken reasonably and in line with relevant guidelines.

In light of this, we found that there was an unreasonable delay in diagnosing PE and that there was a delay in starting antibiotics for suspected pneumonia. These delays likely led to A's condition worsening and contributed towards the requirement for A to be admitted to a high dependency unit. There were also communication failings that led to a delay in an x-ray being carried out.

We identified failings in the way in which the board handled the complaint. We found that the board's response to C's complaint did not address the matters raised in a structured format, which made it difficult to follow.

As such, on balance, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C and A 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:

• A suitable handover tool should be used consistently to ensure instructions have been carried out as prescribed, e.g (SBAR) Handover Tool.
• Patients presenting with symptoms of pulmonary embolism should be diagnosed and treated in line with the relevant guidelines. Clinicians should be aware of confirmation/cognitive bias in differential diagnosis of patients with pre-existing conditions.
• Patients should be treated appropriately for their presenting symptoms and where appropriate antibiotic treatment commenced.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaint responses should be clear and understandable, in line with the NHS Complaints Handling Procedure.

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.