New Customer Service Standards

We have updated our Customer Service Standards and are looking for feedback from customers. Please fill out our survey here by 12 May 2025: https://forms.office.com/e/ZDpjibqe8r 

Health

  • Report no:
    202111459
  • Date:
    January 2025
  • Body:
    Lothian NHS Board - Acute Division
  • Sector:
    Health

The complainant (C) complained to my office about the care and treatment provided to their late adult child (A) by Lothian NHS Board – Acute Division (the Board). 

A was in their thirties and suffered from a number of chronic illnesses and very poor health. A had regular admissions to hospital and received treatment from community and district nurses between admissions to hospital. 

A was admitted to the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh (the hospital) on 6 June 2021 with shortness of breath. A’s pre-existing leg wounds were treated in hospital during their admissions. A was discharged home on 24 June 2021. A continued to receive treatment at home from district nurses for their leg wounds. 

A’s condition deteriorated and they were admitted to hospital again on 26 August 2021. A’s health continued to deteriorate, and A underwent a right knee amputation on 2 September 2021. A did not make a full recovery following surgery. A remained in hospital and suffered a cardiac arrest on 11 October 2021. Sadly, A died the same day. 

C complained that A’s wounds were not appropriately assessed or treated during their admission to hospital, or during the time they were cared for at home. 

In their complaint response the Board said that throughout A’s care, where infection was suspected by the district nursing team, appropriate treatment was provided. During the course of treatment at home by district nurses, A’s care plan was reviewed regularly, changes were made to the wound care plan when necessary, dressings were changed when appropriate and a referral made to the tissue viability service. 

In response to our enquiries the Board said that there was evidence of good practice during A’s admission to hospital in June 2021 with respect to the management of A’s wounds. The Board acknowledged a wound care chart was not completed on the day of admission, but there were clear entries thereafter evidencing A’s wound care. 

With respect to A’s admission to hospital in August 2021, the Board said that A’s wound care was appropriately documented and that available records evidenced appropriate nursing care during A’s admission. 

During my investigation I took independent advice from a registered nurse. Having considered and accepted the advice I received, I found that:

Care at home

  • There was no evidence of appropriate wound assessments having been undertaken whilst A was treated by district nurses for their wounds.
  • The choice of dressings was on occasion unreasonable and inappropriate to manage A’s wounds.
  • Whilst there were occasions where the frequency of dressing changes was stepped-up to daily changes, these were inconsistent. As a result A was left with wet and foul smelling dressings, which is unreasonable.
  • There was an unreasonable delay in seeking specialist wound care when it was clear A’s wounds were deteriorating. 

Care during hospital admissions

  • During both admissions A’s wounds were not appropriately assessed and there were a number of instances of inappropriate and unreasonable wound care provided to A.
  • During A’s June 2021 admission to hospital there was an unreasonable failure to update their wound management plan and appropriately assess a deep abscess.
  • During the admission from August 2021, inadine dressings were inappropriately prescribed and applied.
  • Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT, a device to promote wound healing) was used on A’s wounds without evidence of the appropriate assessments having been carried out prior to its use. NPWT was applied in circumstances where it was contraindicated. Its use was unreasonable.
  • Clinicians and nursing staff did not appear to have the requisite knowledge in relation to the application of NPWT. 

Taking all of the above into account, I upheld C’s complaints

Recommendations

What we are asking Lothian NHS Board - Acute Division to do for the complainant

Rec. number What we found What the organisation should do What we need to see
1.

In relation to (a) and (b) I found that:

  • A’s wounds were not appropriately assessed
  • The frequency of dressing changes was not sufficient to manage A’s wounds
  • There were missed opportunities to refer A to the Tissue Viability Specialists, and that there was an unreasonable delay in making the referral
  • Dressings applied to A’s wounds were at times contraindicated or inappropriate to manage their wounds
  • Negative Pressure Wound Therapy was inappropriately and unreasonably applied to an actively bleeding wound and
  • Negative Pressure Wound Therapy was also inappropriately and unreasonably applied to a sloughy wound.

Apologise to C for the failures identified in my decision. 

The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflet.

A copy or record of the apology. 

By: 19 February 2025.

What we are asking Lothian NHS Board - Acute Division to improve the way they do things

Rec. number What we found Outcome needed What we need to see
2. A’s wounds were not appropriately assessed. Wound assessments for patients should be completed holistically and on a timely basis in line with the patient’s presentation. Assessments should appropriately document the progression/ deterioration of a patient’s wound and prescribe appropriate wound management.

Evidence that the Board have shared the decision with all staff involved with wound care in a supportive manner for reflection and learning. 

By: 19 February 2025. 

Evidence that the Board have reviewed their wound management guidance to ensure it appropriately takes into account relevant national guidance with details of how any changes will be disseminated to staff. 

Evidence that the Board have reviewed their wound care assessment training for relevant nursing staff in light of the findings of this investigation with details of how it will be rolled out to relevant staff. 

By: 16 April 2025

3. 

The frequency of dressing changes was not sufficient to manage A’s wounds. On one occasion hospital at home staff attending A inappropriately left wet and soaked through dressings for district nursing staff to change which was unreasonable, and 

Dressings applied to A’s wounds were at times not appropriate, contraindicated, or inappropriate to manage their wounds.

Wound dressings should be changed frequently enough to manage the level of exudate, to prevent ‘strikethrough’ and foul smells. Patients should not be left at home with wet or soaked through dressings unchanged.

Evidence that the Board have shared the decision with all relevant staff involved with wound care assessment in a supportive manner for reflection and learning. 

By: 19 February 2025. 

Evidence that the Board has ensured that staff delivering such services have received the appropriate training and ongoing professional development. 

This should include details of future plans to either / both provide training now and how expertise will be maintained. 

By: 16 April 2025

4.  There was an unreasonable delay in referring A to Tissue Viability Specialists and there was an unreasonable delay in making the referral.

Where a patient’s wounds deteriorate despite on-going treatment or are non-progressing over a period of time, nursing staff should consider immediate referral for specialist tissue viability assessment. 

Decisions in relation to referral should be documented and if the need for referral is identified this should be actioned without delay.

Evidence that The Board have shared the decision with relevant nursing staff involved with wound care in a supportive manner for reflection and learning. 

By: 19 February 2025. 

Evidence that the Board have an appropriate referral pathway for specialist wound management and that relevant nursing staff are aware of how to access it to make a referral. 

By: 16 April 2025.

5.

Negative Pressure Wound Therapy was inappropriately applied to an actively bleeding wound. 

Negative Pressure Wound Therapy was also inappropriately applied to a sloughy wound.

Negative Pressure Wound Therapy should be applied in accordance with manufacturers guidance and in accordance with Board policy and HIS guidance.

Evidence that the Board have shared the decision with all relevant staff involved in wound management. 

By: 19 February 2025. 

Evidence that relevant staff are aware of the Board’s policy on the use of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy and manufacturers guidelines, and 

that medical staff deemed competent in prescribing/applying Negative Pressure Wound Therapy have received training in its use. 

By: 16 April 2025

Feedback

Points to note

The ‘house held’ records which contain the written record of care provided at A’s home have been reported as lost. I encourage the Board to reflect on the circumstances leading to their loss, and whether there is any learning for them in relation to record keeping and records management policies and staff guidance.

  • Case ref:
    202301856
  • Date:
    December 2024
  • Body:
    Tayside NHS Board
  • Sector:
    Health
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    Clinical treatment / Diagnosis

Summary

C had a number of concerns about their child (A)’s behaviour, development, and educational attainment. A was referred to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) in the board. An assessment was carried out, the result of which was that A was not diagnosed with a neurodevelopmental condition.

C complained that the board had unreasonably discharged A from the CAMHS service after having determined that they did not have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), without sufficient consideration being given to other potential diagnoses, and that the board failed to provide reasonable support following the lack of a diagnosis.

We took independent advice from a psychologist specialising in CAMHS. We found that the while the board had ruled out ADHD, their assessment had also considered other neurodevelopmental conditions such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and intellectual disability (ID), as well as a broader consideration of A’s circumstances and early life experiences. It was evident that A did not meet the criteria for ongoing treatment via CAMHS and that that the board had carried out a sufficiently thorough and comprehensive assessment prior to discharging A. We also found that appropriate thought and consideration had been given to ensuring that A and C were engaged with the relevant agencies with respect to ongoing support being available, in particular through A’s schooling.

For these reasons, we found that the care and treatment provided to C and A had been reasonable and we did not uphold C’s complaints.

  • Case ref:
    202304367
  • Date:
    December 2024
  • Body:
    Lothian NHS Board
  • Sector:
    Health
  • Outcome:
    Some upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    Clinical treatment / diagnosis

Summary

C complained on behalf of their spouse (A) about the standard of care and treatment received in the months before A died. The board partially upheld the complaint, including failings in communication and a lack of privacy and dignity shown to A.

We took independent advice from a registered nurse. We found that while the board had acknowledged some failings, they had not identified other issues with person-centred care planning, care delivery and documentation. We therefore upheld this part of the complaint.

C complained that the board had failed to communicate with A and their family to a reasonable standard. The board acknowledged that despite C being A’s carer, and it having been agreed to utilise email communication, information was not always shared with the wider team, which may have contributed to C’s perception that communication was lacking. We found that the board’s position that there was no record of any upset between A and individual staff members was factually incorrect. We thereby upheld this part of the complaint.

C complained that there was no record of a care plan, and that the package of care was not adequate for A’s needs. The board acknowledged the lack of a suitable care package had an impact on discharge planning, and that they had failed to establish a more detailed person-centred care plan once A was discharged. We found that there was detailed planning and discussion around discharge involving C and A. We did not uphold this element of the complaint because, on balance, while the delivery of care did not match C and A’s expectations, this did not make the plan unreasonable in the circumstances.

C also complained that the board’s response to their complaint was unreasonable and delayed. We found that C’s complaint was complex and multi-faceted accounting to some extent for the delay. However, the response had inaccuracies and failed to identify all the failings in care. For that reason, on balance, we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

  • Apologise to C for the failures 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:

  • The board should ensure that person centred care planning is person specific and staff are knowledgeable on how to create a person-centred care plan; that care rounding is completed appropriately, that pain is assessed to the appropriate level and using the correct tools, that privacy and dignity is maintained by all staff for all patients and that staff are aware of how to promote continence and are competent in the use of products used to promote continence.
  • Communication with patients and families should be person-centred, full, and accurate.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

  • Complaint responses should be accurate and identify all failings.

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.

  • Case ref:
    202301188
  • Date:
    December 2024
  • Body:
    Lothian NHS Board - Acute Division
  • Sector:
    Health
  • Outcome:
    Some upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    Record keeping

Summary

C complained that Lothian NHS Board (Board 1) unreasonably failed to maintain records of specialist advice they provided to another board (Board 2). C attended A&E at Board 2 with symptoms of significant pain, problems passing urine and lack of sensation. On the specialist advice of neurosurgery at Board 1, C was admitted to the Orthopaedics department of Board 2’s hospital and an MRI was carried out the following day. The MRI scan results were discussed with the Board 1's neurosurgery team, following which C was discharged. C later required emergency surgery and considers the outcome would have been better if they had undergone surgery when they originally attended hospital.

When C complained to Board 2, they confirmed that they had relied on the Board 1’s specialist advice but Board 1 had failed to keep a record of the referral. C complained that Board 1 unreasonably failed to maintain records of the specialist advice provided to Board 2. C also complained about the neurosurgery advice provided by Board 1 to Board 2.

We took independent advice from a consultant orthopaedic surgeon in relation to the complaint about maintaining accurate records. We found that Board 1 unreasonably failed to maintain records of the specialist advice provided to Board 2. We upheld the complaint.

We took independent advice from a consultant neurosurgeon in relation to the complaint about neurosurgery advice. We found that C had been appropriately assessed with a thorough examination. As such, we did not uphold this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

  • Apologise to C for the failing 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 system is in place which ensures when advice is provided by the board for tertiary patients there is a record of this as a permanent part of that patient’s electronic record.

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.

  • Case ref:
    202302985
  • Date:
    December 2024
  • Body:
    Lanarkshire NHS Board
  • Sector:
    Health
  • Outcome:
    Upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    Clinical treatment / diagnosis

Summary

C’s elderly parent (A) spent two months in hospital due to extensive bruising on their arms and legs with no obvious cause. A suffered acute hip pain while in hospital and became dependent on oxygen. C complained about concerns that they had regarding many aspects of A’s experiences, including A’s discharge after a few weeks and readmission just over a week later. On the day of readmission, A had been visited by district nurses who had administered morphine to A. A died on readmission.

We took independent advice from an adviser specialising in medicine for the elderly. C complained that A was unreasonably discharged. We found that steps had not been taken to ensure that A and C had been provided with reasonable information about the medication that A had been prescribed. Therefore we upheld this aspect of the complaint. Additionally, C complained that district nurses unreasonably failed to administer an appropriate amount of morphine to A. We found that the district nurses’ should have administered an additional dose after the initial dose of morphine did not take effect. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

  • Apologise for the failures 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:

  • The reflective reviews undertaken to reduce the risk of similar issues emerging in future should have included specific discussion of information about medication being provided to patients and, where appropriate, their carers/families or other support.

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.

  • Case ref:
    202302835
  • Date:
    December 2024
  • Body:
    Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board - Acute Services Division
  • Sector:
    Health
  • Outcome:
    Upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    Appointments / Admissions (delay / cancellation / waiting lists)

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment received by their young child (A). A had a complex congenital (from birth) heart condition. C complained to the board after A received heart surgery, which had been part of the treatment planned for A. C complained that the board did not reasonably respond to C’s concerns prior to A’s operation. C also complained about the timing of A’s admission to hospital and the timing of the operation.

We took independent advice from a consultant paediatric cardiologist (specialist in children’s heart problems). We found that, overall, the board provided excellent care to A and a successful outcome was achieved through A’s surgery. We found that the timing of A’s operation was reasonable considering A’s age. However, we also found that A was not provided with appropriate follow-up plans in relation to care provided before A’s surgery and that A should have been admitted to hospital three days earlier. On balance, we upheld C’s 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:

  • Patients should receive timely admission to hospital and follow-up appointments, based on their clinical needs and presentation.

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.

  • Case ref:
    202301408
  • Date:
    December 2024
  • Body:
    A Medical Practice in the NHS Forth Valley Board area
  • Sector:
    Health
  • Outcome:
    Some upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    Clinical treatment / diagnosis

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment provided to their parent (A). A had presented with foot pain and initially had been thought to have Plantar Fasciitis (an inflammation of the tissue along the bottom of the foot). A later returned to the practice with an infected toe, which failed to respond to antibiotics. A was referred to vascular medicine and later underwent surgery in hospital, but died a few months later. C believed that A should have been referred to vascular medicine sooner, as A was at high risk and displayed symptoms of vascular disease. C was also unhappy with the language used in the complaint response that the family received.

We took independent advice from a general practitioner. We found that A was given a reasonable standard of treatment and care. There was no evidence that symptoms of vascular disease were dismissed or overlooked. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. In relation to the language used in the complaint response, we found that the complaint response was inappropriately informal and contained some errors, which added to the family’s distress. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

  • Apologise to C for the inappropriate language and incorrect dates in the complaint response. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at HYPERLINK "http://www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets" 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.

  • Case ref:
    202308058
  • Date:
    December 2024
  • Body:
    Fife NHS Board
  • Sector:
    Health
  • Outcome:
    Upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    Complaints handling

Summary

C complained that the board failed to reasonably respond to their complaint about the way a form was completed by the GP at their GP Practice.

We found that while the board provided regular updates, apologised for the delay and reasonably managed C’s contact, the length of time responding to the complaint and the inaccuracies of the updates provided to C, were unreasonable. The response to the complaint was unclear and did not answer all of the points raised by C. As such, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

  • Apologise to C for failures 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:

  • Complaint responses are issued as soon as possible, with the response responding to the main points raised and agreed with the complainant, and any required updates accurately reflect the reasons for the delay.

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.

  • Case ref:
    202210447
  • Date:
    December 2024
  • Body:
    Borders NHS Board
  • Sector:
    Health
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    Clinical treatment / diagnosis

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment provided to their friend (A) when they were admitted to hospital. A was in hospital for around three and a half months after being admitted with weakness and reduced mobility, with a short history of dysuria (pain or discomfort when urinating) and urinary urgency. A died during their stay in hospital.

C complained about several aspects of the nursing care provided to A. In addition to this, they complained about the physiotherapy input provided to A. Finally, C complained about what they considered to be insufficient detail in A’s death certificate.

In respect of the nursing care provided to A, the board acknowledged that there was learning or areas for improvement. We took independent nursing advice. We found that the board provided A with a reasonable standard of care. We recognised that there was learning to take from A’s experience, however, we did not consider that the care provided unreasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

In respect of the physiotherapy provided to A, we took independent physiotherapy advice. We found that the physiotherapy input provided to A was reasonable, given the circumstances at the time. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

  • Case ref:
    202303473
  • Date:
    November 2024
  • Body:
    Tayside NHS Board
  • Sector:
    Health
  • Outcome:
    Upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    Clinical treatment / diagnosis

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment provided to their late parent (A) by the board. A, who had a history of breast cancer, was admitted to hospital with pain and vomiting. Tests were carried out and A underwent a liver biopsy. Following the biopsy, their condition deteriorated and they died a few days later. C felt that A’s death was premature and was hastened by the actions of the board.

The board said that CT scans showed that A had an abnormal liver and an MRI was requested. This wasn’t completed until eight days later due to high demand. The liver biopsy was undertaken the same day. When A began to deteriorate, an urgent CT scan showed that A was bleeding from an injury to the branch of the cystic artery from the biopsy site. The board said that this is a known complication of a liver biopsy. The bleed was successfully treated but A deteriorated further and died. A had shown signs of potential infection and was commenced on antibiotics. The post-mortem stated that the cause of death was ‘complications of liver biopsy and metastatic breast cancer in liver’, and could not conclude to what extent the infection contributed to A’s death.

We took independent advice from a consultant general and colorectal surgeon. We found that the MRI did not appear to have been reviewed prior to proceeding to biopsy and the breast team were not notified of the CT scan results. We also noted that A was not referred to the breast cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT). We found that antibiotics should ideally have been administered within one hour of deterioration and sepsis considered as a main cause of A’s deterioration. A was also given a cystic artery embolization (a minimally invasive procedure that blocks or closes the blood vessel) and two units of blood despite having a normal blood count and no evidence of significant bleeding. Therefore, we upheld this part of C’s complaint.

C complained about communication with A and A’s family, stating that A was not given sufficient information about their condition or results from tests. A’s family were unaware of test results until after A’s death. We found that communication with A and A’s family was unreasonable and that there had also been an absence of communication with the breast team and MDT, which was a missed opportunity. We upheld this part of C’s complaint.

C complained that the board unreasonably failed to undertake a Significant Adverse Event Review. We found it was unreasonable for the board not to have undertaken a Significant Adverse Event Review. This was a missed opportunity to reflect on A’s care and treatment, and identify learning from these events. We upheld this part of C’s complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

  • Apologise to C for the failure to provide reasonable care and treatment to A, the failure to communicate to a reasonable standard and the failure to undertake a Significant Adverse Event Review. 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:

  • Plans for investigations, especially of an invasive nature, should be adequately discussed with the patient, including where there is a suspicion of malignancy.
  • Relevant clinical teams should be involved, especially where investigations were initiated prior to admission. Sepsis should be appropriately considered as a reason for deterioration, and wherever possible, antibiotics be administered within an hour of deterioration. Appropriate treatment should be given based on clinical signs and symptoms.
  • Significant Adverse Event Review’s should be completed in line with the national framework and the board’s own protocols.

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.