Health

Summary

Mrs C was treated in hospital for a sub-arachnoid haemorrhage (bleeding into the area between the brain and the thin tissues that cover it) that required emergency surgery. She complained that during her stay in hospital, she contracted bacterial meningitis (inflammation of the protective membranes covering the brain and spinal cord) as a result of an external ventricular drain (a device used in neurosurgery) that was inserted to control an abnormal build-up of cerebrospinal fluid (a clear colourless fluid produced in part of the brain). Mrs C was treated with antibiotic therapy administered intravenously (into a vein) and intrathecally (into the spinal subarachnoid space - the compartment within the spinal column which contains the cerebrospinal fluid). Her condition stabilised and she was later discharged home.

Mrs C told us that she continued to suffer a number of debilitating symptoms including no sense of smell or taste, frequent headaches, and lack of

co-ordination and concentration; and said that she has been unable to return to work. She attributes this to receiving inadequate care and treatment during her stay at the hospital. Mrs C also complained about matters related to the patient's charter, prescribed medication, her visitor allocation, treatment by staff and the response to her complaint.

As part of our investigation, we obtained independent advice from two medical advisers, who considered all aspects of Mrs C's care. We took account of their advice alongside all the documents provided by Mrs C and the board. Our investigation found no evidence of any failure in the care and treatment Mrs C received, either in relation to the fact that she contracted bacterial meningitis, or with her medication, visitors or treatment by staff. We did uphold her complaints about the patient's charter and the board's complaint response, but did not find it necessary to make any recommendations.

Summary

Ms C and Mr C are sister and brother. Their elderly father (Mr A) was admitted to a hospital as an emergency with a suspected urinary tract infection, and was discharged home five days later. Ms C was unhappy that although she held a power of attorney for her father, no senior member of staff contacted her to discuss Mr A's care, in particular the changes that were made to his heart medication. The hospital clinician's view was that Mr A suffered from several illnesses and his admission was precipitated by increasing confusion and reduced mobility. The clinician said that the medicine changes made in hospital took account of Mr A's condition at the time of his first admission. Mr A was readmitted to the hospital about four weeks later and tests confirmed he had suffered a heart attack. He died there three days later. Both Ms C and Mr C said that the hospital withdrew Mr A's life supporting medication during his first admission and they made several complaints linked to this.

We took independent advice from one of our medical advisers, who considered all the clinical aspects of the case. We took account of his advice along with the documentation provided by Ms C and Mr C and the board. The adviser said that life supporting medication was not withdrawn, and that Mr A's age, frailty and his other illnesses had to be taken into account. However, the adviser also said that consideration should have been given to Mr A's future symptom control when he was discharged home after his first admission, so we made recommendations to the board about this. The adviser also said that there was no evidence that a review by a doctor was not independent. Although, therefore, we did not uphold the complaints about Mr A's clinical treatment, we considered that the board had offered unsatisfactory explanations to Ms C and Mr C when they complained and we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• feedback the learning from this complaint to all staff;
• ensure that when changes in medicine(s) are made to patients with diminished capacity, such changes are discussed with their carers;
• ensure that, when medicines are changed prior to a patient's discharge home, consideration is given for appropriate follow-up or monitoring of the patient;
• ensure that information entered in case records is an accurate reflection of events;
• apologise to Ms C and Mr C for the failures identified in this case; and
• ensure that the rationale for changes in medication is clearly documented.

Summary

Mrs C's late mother (Mrs A) was prescribed methotrexate (a disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug) from October 2008 for rheumatoid arthritis. She was monitored on a four-weekly basis, her GP practice took blood tests and she was seen regularly by the rheumatoid clinic at the hospital. In April 2012, however, Mrs A was admitted to hospital where she was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. She died the following month.

Mrs C complained that her mother should have been taken off the medication because her immune system started to deteriorate and because she had a sore stomach around mid-2011. She also complained that the practice failed to reasonably treat her mother's stomach pain, which Mrs C believed was an indicator that her mother had pancreatic cancer. Finally, Mrs C said that in October 2011 a blood test was carried out showing high levels of inflammation, which she believed indicated cancer, but the practice then failed to carry out any further tests.

After taking independent advice from one of our medical advisers, we found that the practice had properly monitored Mrs A while she was prescribed methotrexate. Moreover, there were no specific entries in Mrs A's medical records in 2011 showing that she attended the practice complaining of a sore stomach. We were, therefore, satisfied that there was no evidence that the care and treatment Mrs A received fell below a reasonable standard.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment given to her late mother (Mrs A) in hospital over a two day period. Mrs A was elderly, had been unwell and was deteriorating. Mrs C said she had spoken to her mother by phone late on the afternoon of the first day, and she had sounded well. However, Mrs C received a call the next morning to say that Mrs A had deteriorated rapidly and that she should come to the hospital. Mrs C then spoke over the phone with an out-of-hours GP who was treating Mrs A. The GP advised Mrs A that he felt it would not be appropriate to transfer Mrs A to an acute unit, and that ensuring her comfort and dignity was the priority at that stage. Mrs C complained to us that she felt an opportunity to provide Mrs A with further treatment was missed. She said that though she understood Mrs A was nearing the end of her life, she was concerned that there was a lack of appropriate care and treatment over the two days.

We obtained independent medical, nursing and GP advice from our medical advisers in order to reach a decision on Mrs C's complaint. We found that, although it may have been reasonable to reduce the number of observations carried out on Mrs A due to the type of care she was receiving, this was not recorded in her care plan, nor was there evidence of this having been discussed with Mrs A or her family. We noted that clinical observations taken a couple of days before were inappropriately recorded as 'low', and there was then a

60-hour period during which no observations were made. We took the view that the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS - a guide used to quickly determine the degree of illness of a patient) had not been used correctly and, although there was no suggestion that the eventual outcome for Mrs A would have been different, we found that her care in this regard was not reasonable.

We did find that the care provided by the GP following the discovery of Mrs A in an unresponsive state was appropriate, reasonable and patient-centred. Mrs C had felt it was inappropriate and distressing that he had discussed these matters over the phone, although the board said that they had phoned Mrs A earlier to advise her to attend the hospital immediately. Mrs C disputed this. We could not reach a definitive conclusion about this, although we noted that in the circumstances there did not appear to have been any alternative and that the GP handled a difficult situation well. On balance, however, giving regard to our findings in relation to the lack of observations, we upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• apologise to Mrs C in writing for the failures identified in Mrs A's care; and
• consider adopting a weighted scoring system to identify patient deterioration in place of the 'as required' use of the MEWS system, as detailed in National Early Warning Score (NEWS): Standardising the assessment of acute illness severity in the NHS.

Summary

Mr C's brother (Mr A) was in hospital for two months before being discharged to a care home. Mr C's other brother (Mr B) had welfare and continuing power of attorney for Mr A. Mr C complained that staff failed to take into account Mr A's communication problems related to his cognitive impairment (a condition that affects the ability to think, concentrate, formulate ideas, reason and remember) and his rapid deterioration while he was in hospital. Staff also failed to notice his legs were swollen or that he had injured his eye. Mr C asked to see a doctor who knew Mr A but as that person was unavailable, the family had to speak with another doctor who was not familiar with him. The doctor suggested an assessment. Mr C said that when this was carried out, Mr A's dementia and inability to recognise threats and dangers to his own safety were obvious. Mr C was also unhappy that nursing staff put items of lightly and heavily soiled clothing in the same bags for taking home to launder.

As part of the arrangements to discharge Mr A from hospital, an occupational therapist and social worker visited his home. Mr C did not agree with their findings, or that the proposed adjustments to the house would enable his brother to live there. The family were, therefore, concerned about Mr A's planned discharge home. The hospital consultant phoned Mr C at home to explain why Mr A was being discharged, but the family were not told exactly when this would happen. On arriving at visiting time one day, Mr B found an ambulance crew taking Mr A to be discharged home. The family said this was not acceptable, and Mr A was returned to the ward. He was eventually transferred to a care home. Again, Mr C said that the family and Mr A's social worker were not told about this in advance and only learned of it in a phone message left on an answering machine. Mr C complained about Mr A’s care and treatment at the hospital. In particular, he complained about the lack of clinical treatment which was provided; a lack of co-ordination by health and social work staff; a failure to properly assess Mr A's needs and a failure to communicate with Mr C and his other brother about Mr A’s welfare and eventual discharge.

After taking independent advice from one of our medical advisers, we upheld Mr C's complaints about care and treatment and about communication with Mr A's family. We found that while the care and treatment provided in relation to Mr A’s physical health, including medication, was reasonable, there were failures in relation to his mental health care needs. These included fully assessing his capacity for decision-making, which was of considerable concern to us. While we found evidence in the medical records of communication by nursing staff with Mr A's family about his discharge planning, the medical consultant's communication with them was limited to one phone call. This was below a reasonable standard, as the communication failed to meet the needs of Mr A or his family in relation to Mr A’s welfare given the complexity of his condition. We found, however, that the assessment and planning for discharge was reasonable. We found evidence that Mr A's family were involved and we were satisfied that the arrangements themselves were reasonable.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• ensure that failings identified in relation to communication and documentation are brought to the consultant's attention and reviewed as part of the consultant's annual appraisal;
• apologise to Mr C for the failures identified;
• bring our adviser's comments about the review of Mr A’s prostate medication to the attention of relevant staff;
• provide evidence of how they are implementing Scotland's National Dementia Strategy with particular reference to communication with the families and carers of patients with cognitive impairment; and
• introduce a policy to ensure that the cognitive function of elderly patients is assessed and, if this is impaired, that capacity for decision-making is also assessed.

Summary

Miss C complained that her late mother (Mrs A), was inappropriately discharged from hospital while still suffering from a urine infection. Mrs A had diabetes and lung disease. She was admitted to hospital suffering from a number of symptoms, including confusion and fever. Mrs A was diagnosed with a urine infection and was treated with intravenous (IV) antibiotics. Mrs A was discharged after five days, but two days later was admitted to another hospital, where she died soon after admission. The cause of death was urine infection leading to kidney failure. Miss C was concerned that during Mrs A’s stay her fluid balances had not been sufficiently monitored and that she had been discharged too soon.

Our investigation, which included taking independent advice from two of our medical advisers, a doctor and a nurse, found that the care and treatment provided to Mrs A was reasonable. It was reasonable to treat Mrs A with IV antibiotics and the blood and urine tests done during her stay showed that her condition improved. The specific bacteria causing the infection was not identified until after she was discharged. This was thought to be due to the fact that Mrs A was already being treated with antibiotics before admission, which can slow down the rate at which specific bacteria can be identified in the laboratory. In the light of the improving laboratory results, it was reasonable to discharge Mrs A with oral antibiotics to continue her recovery at home. In the event, the specific bacteria proved to be a serious and potentially fatal one which was resistant to the antibiotics prescribed. However, overall we considered Mrs A’s treatment, and the discharge were reasonable.

On the matter of the fluid balance charts, both advisers commented that these charts are notoriously unreliable as so many factors influence fluid balance. However, both also noted that the charts completed in Mrs A's case were of a reasonable and acceptable standard.

Summary

Mr C complained that there was a delay in the board carrying out bariatric (weight-loss) surgery to help control his weight. In August 2009, Mr C's GP referred him to the board's weight management service - a service that was in place between December 2008 and July 2012. The referral paperwork was lost so Mr C's GP sent a further referral in February 2010. The board told Mr C that he would receive a psychological assessment within a couple of months, but the appointment did not take place until a year later. The board did not tell Mr C or his GP that there were no psychological assessment clinics running during this period. In October 2011, the psychologist confirmed that Mr C met the criteria to be further assessed for bariatric surgery and that he would be referred to another board's obesity service, which was the procedure in place at this time. In November 2011, the GP referred Mr C through the appropriate channel but the board failed to advise the GP or Mr C that no referrals to the other board were being accepted, due to the demand on the service. In July 2012 a new national weight management criteria was implemented and in October 2012, Mr C was advised that he was no longer eligible to be referred for surgery because he did not meet new age criteria.

Our investigation found that, had Mr C's referral paperwork in 2009 not been lost, and had there not been a significantly long delay of a year in his psychological assessment going ahead, he would have been assessed under the criteria in place before July 2012. In addition, Mr C appeared to have been misled about the boards weight management service. We concluded that the board should have followed through on their agreement to further assess Mr C's suitability for bariatric surgery.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• consider prioritising Mr C's assessment for surgery under section 3 of the national obesity treatment best practice guide (July 2012); and
• apologise to Mr C for the delay in his psychological pre-assessment being carried out and for the lack of information given to him about his referral to the other board.

Summary

Mrs C's daughter (Miss A) was pregnant, and was admitted to hospital for her baby to be induced. However, her baby was born by emergency caesarian section (an emergency operation) the next day, and Miss A was discharged home a few days after that. On the day she was discharged, she had been reviewed and an ileus (a condition where the bowel stops contracting and relaxing to move the bowel contents) was suspected. However, Miss A was reviewed again later in the day, noted to be well and was discharged. She had to be readmitted to hospital the next day, with vomiting and a suspected bowel blockage. She needed surgery to release a suture which had been around part of her bowel, and the bowel was then re-sectioned (part of it removed).

Mrs C complained on Miss A's behalf that her daughter had not received a reasonable standard of medical care, and that she was released from hospital too early. She alleged that insufficient care had been taken when Miss A's caesarian section was carried out and that her bowel had been perforated because of this. However, the board said that Miss A's emergency section had been carried out in a routine manner and that she had suffered an unusual complication. Overall, they said that her care had been appropriate.

To investigate the complaint, we took independent advice from one of our medical advisers. Our adviser confirmed that Miss A's bowel injury was a rare but recognised complication of a caesarian section, particularly one that was not planned and was carried out in the later stages of labour, and that the records showed that all reasonable care had been taken during the operation. She also said that there had been no reason not to discharge Miss A, although some of the record-keeping could have been better.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• remind all staff of the importance of timing and dating all entries in the record. Also that staff are reminded that when a complication is suspected, the subsequent records are explicit about the progress of the symptoms giving cause for concern.

Summary

Ms A was removed from the practice's treatment list. She believed this was inappropriate, and complained to the practice. She remained dissatisfied when she received their response and her partner (Mr C) complained to us on her behalf.

When we investigated, we found that the practice had not met the requirements of the relevant regulations for the removal of a patient from a treatment list. We upheld Mr C's complaint that Ms A's removal from the practice list had been inappropriate, and made recommendations to address this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the practice:

• apologise directly to Ms A that she was inappropriately removed from their treatment list; and
• review their procedures on the removal of patients from their treatment list to ensure that they comply with the relevant regulations, guidelines and guidance.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the care and treatment provided to her sister (Ms A) was unreasonable. Ms A had a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a long-term lung condition), osteoporosis (thinning of the bones) and heart problems. A GP from the medical practice visited and, after examining her, prescribed antibiotics and steroids (drugs commonly used to fight infections) in tablet form. Ms A had trouble taking these as she was normally unable to swallow tablets and usually had medication in liquid or powder form. Her condition did not improve.

A second GP visited the next day and again examined Ms A but was unable to take her temperature as his thermometer was broken. The GP prescribed a different antibiotic, again in tablet form. Neither GP considered that Ms A's condition warranted emergency admission to hospital and the second GP said that Ms A had specifically told him that she did not want to go to hospital. Ms A's condition continued to deteriorate and Mrs C called NHS 24 (a national advice helpline) later that evening. Ms A was taken by ambulance to hospital where she was found to be suffering from sepsis (serious infection) and hypothermia (where the body temperature falls below the normal range). She was admitted, but died shortly afterwards.

We did not uphold any of Mrs C's complaints. Our investigation, which included taking independent advice from a medical adviser, concluded that the examinations and management plan for Ms A had been reasonable. In particular, the adviser said that in light of Ms A's reluctance to go to hospital it was appropriate to take her views into consideration and to manage her condition at home. The family disputed that Ms A did not want to go to hospital, but the records showed that the ambulance paramedics had recorded her reluctance to go there. The practice acknowledged that Ms A had medication in liquid form, but there was nothing specific in her notes to highlight that she had difficulty in swallowing tablets. In any event, the second GP did not have access to the notes on his visit as he had been passed the call while out of the practice doing other home visits. There was also no clear evidence that Ms A or the family specifically told either GP that Ms A could not swallow tablets.