Health

Summary

C made a complaint about their late parent (A)'s discharge from University Hospital Hairmyres. C believed that A was not fit to be discharged and that this resulted in A having a fall, and sustaining an injury which then contributed to A's death.

We took independent advice from a physiotherapy adviser and a consultant physician and geriatrician (a speciality focussing on the health care of elderly people). We found that a comprehensive geriatric assessment was not carried out during A's admission. Given that this is a requirement outlined in the Healthcare Improvement Scotland (HIS) Care of older people in hospital standards, we considered it was unreasonable that no assessment appears to have been carried out. This may have provided a more comprehensive view of the issues affecting A.

We also found that A's case was not discussed at a Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting prior to A's discharge. If this meeting had taken place, the MDT could have considered whether A would have benefited from further rehabilitation (either in hospital or in the community).

Given that an MDT meeting did not take place prior to A's discharge, and given the lack of a comprehensive geriatric assessment in line with HIS standards, on balance, we considered the decision to discharge A was unreasonable. We upheld C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for not carrying out a comprehensive geriatric assessment during A's admission and for not discussing A's case at a Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting prior to their discharge. 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:

• Clinicians should have access to MDT meetings including all appropriate specialties to discuss patients on geriatric units who have MDT input.
• Older people presenting with frailty syndromes should have prompt access to a comprehensive geriatric assessment in line with Healthcare Improvement Scotland standards.

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 had power of attorney (POA) for their late spouse (A) and complained about the care and treatment provided to A when they were admitted to hospital from a care home. During their admission, A was detained under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 due to the severity of their dementia. A's health deteriorated and they died in hospital. C complained about various aspects of A's medical care, nursing care and staff's communication with C.

We took independent advice from a consultant geriatrician (a doctor specialising in medical care for the elderly) and a registered nurse. In respect of C's concerns about the medical care provided, we found that while the treatment provided in the earlier part of A's admission was reasonable, staff should have sought C's views about the additional investigations undertaken immediately prior to A's death. We upheld the complaint on that basis.

We concluded that while the nursing notes could have been more explicit on some aspects of A's care, the nursing care overall was of a reasonable standard. We also concluded that the communication with C about A's detention and deterioration was reasonable. We did not uphold these complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to provide a reasonable standard of medical treatment to 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:

• The board should ensure that carers are consulted when making decisions about medical treatment.

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, a support and advocacy worker, complained on behalf of their client (A). A presented to the practice with symptoms of stomach pain and upper and lower backpain. Following several consultations, a GP referred A for an abdominal and renal ultrasound on a routine basis. A was contacted by the hospital with an appointment and was advised that their GP could expedite this if they considered it appropriate. A was referred on an urgent basis by the practice to gastroenterology (specialism of the treatment of conditions affecting the liver, intestine and pancreas) which later confirmed A's diagnosis of cancer.

A complained to the practice that they had failed to expedite the referral despite their worsening symptoms. A believes that if they had been referred to secondary hospital services punctually and had obtained a timely diagnosis, their medical treatment would not have been as invasive and that the risk of cancer spreading to other organs would have been reduced.

In response to the complaint the practice said that an urgent referral was sent to gastroenterology when it was clear that A's symptoms had progressed. A was dissatisfied with the practice's response and C brought the complaint to our office on A's behalf.

During our investigation we requested independent advice on the practice's consultations with A and the arrangements for referring A for further investigations. We found that the decision to refer A initially on a routine basis for an ultrasound was reasonable, given A's symptoms. We found that the medical records indicated consultations with A were reasonable and on the basis of the progression of A's symptoms, there was no unreasonable delay in the urgent referral to gastroenterology being made. We found that the referrals were reasonable and there was no unreasonable delay in making them, as such we did not uphold the complaint.

We provided some feedback to the practice on the management of A's pain.

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.