Health

Summary

C complained to the practice about the lack of care provided to their late parent (A). C said that A had reported breathing and sleeping problems in a telephone consultation to the GP but the GP had only provided medication and A died from a suspected heart attack a week later. The practice believed that appropriate treatment had been provided.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that there was no evidence that A had reported breathing problems to the GP and that there were no recorded symptoms which would have indicated that A required a face-to-face GP consultation, a hospital admission, or that A would suffer a sudden event a week after the telephone consultation. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C developed an infection following a wisdom tooth extraction, which was not diagnosed and subsequently spread to their brain. C was reviewed in hospital on several occasions, including out-patient reviews by oral and maxillofacial (OMF) surgeons (specialists in treating diseases and injuries of the mouth and face) and an in-patient admission to Victoria Hospital. C questioned how the infection was missed on so many different occasions by so many different people.

The board indicated in their response that there were no clinical signs which led them to suspect bacterial infection, and jaw joint problems were being considered as the cause of C's symptoms. C was then suspected, during their in-patient admission, to have viral encephalitis (inflammation of the brain). A plan to carry out an MRI wasn't pursued due to noted improvement in C's condition. The responsible consultant reflected that an MRI should have been performed during the admission, and that not doing so may have delayed the identification and treatment of the infection in C's brain.

We took independent medical advice from a consultant OMF surgeon and a consultant physician. While it was noted that C's infection presented atypically and was difficult to diagnose, their C-reactive protein (CRP, inflammation marker) was raised when they initially presented and this wasn't acted upon. A CT scan also showed subtle signs of infection but this wasn't picked up at the time. An urgent out-patient MRI was requested to look for joint problems and not to exclude infection, otherwise it may have been carried out sooner. We also found that the subsequent in-patient assessment didn't give due care and attention to C's recent wisdom tooth extraction and hospital attendances. It was agreed that the failure to pursue an in-patient MRI contributed to the failure to correctly diagnose and appropriately treat C's infection. We considered that the decision to discharge C with a persistent headache was unreasonable. Therefore, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failure to diagnose and treat their infection earlier. 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:

• This case should have joint Mortality & Morbidity review. The findings of this investigation should be presented, to ensure relevant learning for staff from the OMF service, radiology and medicine.

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 did not take reasonable action in response to their late spouse (A)'s symptoms and condition. A had a long history of degenerative disc disease affecting their spine (when normal changes that take place in the discs of your spine cause pain) and a history of stomach cancer. A visited or contacted the practice several times over three months regarding pain in the neck and shoulder, numbness in the right hand and jerking of the right leg. Tests were undertaken, medication and therapies prescribed and a referral to an orthopaedic specialist (a specialist in the treatment of diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system) was made. Following a fall at home, A was admitted to hospital where a spread of cancer to A's spine was diagnosed.

A died shortly after C submitted a complaint to the practice about their response to A's symptoms and condition over the previous few months. In response, the practice recounted the actions they had taken in response to A's visits and contacts in their final months, highlighted blood tests whose results did not indicate any significant abnormality or spread of cancer and explained that A's symptoms were relatable to their ongoing diagnosis of degenerative cervical disc and spinal stenosis (a condition where the space around the spinal cord narrows, compressing a section of nerve tissue). The practice advised that a significant case review had been carried out. This had highlighted that A's orthopaedic referral could have been upgraded to urgent when it was clear A's symptoms were not being controlled, but stated that it was doubtful this would have had any impact on the outcome. C was unhappy with this response and brought their complaint to this office.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that the practice took reasonable action in response to A's symptoms and condition until a point. However, when it was clear that A's symptoms were not being controlled and began to worsen, the practice's actions were unreasonable. We found that the potential significance of test results reported to the practice and the potential link with A's symptoms were not reasonably recognised by the practice until they reviewed A's care and treatment as a result of our investigation of the case. Therefore, we upheld C's complaint. However, while we noted that earlier action by the practice may have led to an earlier admission to hospital, it was extremely unlikely to have prevented A's death.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the specific failings identified. The apology should make clear mention of each of the failings identified, whether that was identified by the practice or this office. 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 practice should review how it deals with blood samples that are significantly outwith the normal range. This would include consideration about how they are communicated with the patient, how they are highlighted in the notes and how they are followed up.
• The practice should review their current policy on home visiting patients who are too frail or too unwell to attend the practice to ensure there is a clear criteria for accepting or refusing a home visit and that safeguards are in pace when a home visit request is turned down.

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 late spouse (A) who was admitted to Ninewells Hospital. A Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR, a decision taken that means a healthcare professional is not required to resuscitate the patient if their heart or breathing stops) was put in place some time after their admission and they died a week later.

C complained that clinicians failed to discuss the DNACPR with family prior to this being put in place and, when they were consulted, the family were clear that they were not in agreement with it. The family also complained that the DNACPR form was only signed by one clinician, rather than the two required for the form. C considered this was further evidence that the DNACPR decision was taken incorrectly.

In response, the board said that the decision to put a DNACPR in place was made following discussion at the multi-disciplinary team meeting, the records did not show any disagreement by the family at the time and the form was completed by one of the junior medical staff, on the lead consultant’s instruction.

We took independent advice from an appropriately qualified adviser. We found that the board failed to follow appropriate processes and procedures in relation to the implementation of the DNACPR, in as far as they failed to both adequately document conversations with family members, and to complete the required paperwork correctly. We upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to follow appropriate processes and procedures in relation to the implementation of the DNACPR, more specifically for failing to adequately document conversations with family members, and also in failing to complete the required paperwork correctly. 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 involved should reflect on the complaint and identified failures with respect to the implementation of the DNACPR, specifically documenting communications with family and completing the relevant paperwork and forms.
• Medical professionals and clinicians are aware of, and adhere to, relevant professional standards and guidance with respect to maintaining clinical records and recording decision-making.

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 been treated for chlamydia and gonorrhoea (two types of sexually transmitted infection) by the board. C continued to feel unwell and attended an appointment at the board. C was concerned that they were not physically examined or tested for pelvic inflammatory disease (an infection of the female upper genital tract, including the womb, fallopian tubes and ovaries) and that they were advised to isolate with a possible COVID-19 infection.

We took independent advice from a consultant in sexual and reproductive health with a background in hospital gynaecology (female reproductive system). We found that C reported symptoms which were consistent with pelvic inflammatory disease. In the circumstances, it was unreasonable that a physical assessment was not performed, or as an alternative, empirical antibiotic therapy commenced for possible pelvic inflammatory disease. It was unreasonable that further steps were not taken to assess for and exclude pelvic inflammatory disease as a possible diagnosis in this case, prior to providing the advice regarding self-isolation for possible COVID-19 infection.

In light of the above, we upheld C’s complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for not performing a physical assessment for pelvic inflammatory disease or as an alternative commencing empirical antibiotic therapy. 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 who present with abdominal pain and fever, in the context of a recent sexually transmitted infection, should be physically examined and/or commenced on empirical antibiotic therapy.

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 late partner (A) about the care and treatment they received at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh for heart disease. A’s condition deteriorated and they were transferred to the intensive care unit and then ultimately referred to another health board for a heart transplant. A died five days later.

C said that the board did not treat the left side of A’s heart which resulted in a grave outcome for A. C also said that the board did not notice that A was deteriorating and that A should have been transferred to the other health board earlier.

The board said that when A was admitted they had a blocked right coronary artery and treatment was given for this. They explained that there was no viability in the left side of A’s heart (due to damage caused by a previous heart attack) and therefore, to treat that side would have subjected A to additional risk. The board said that A was very unwell, but reasonably stable until their sudden deterioration. They said that there was no indication that an earlier referral outwith the health board was warranted or would have altered the outcome.

We took independent clinical advice from a consultant cardiologist (a doctor that that deals with diseases and abnormalities of the heart). We found that it was reasonable for the board not to have a treatment plan for the left side of A’s heart as it would have exposed A to increased risk and there would have been no benefit to A (due to irreversible damage caused by a previous heart attack). The board reasonably monitored A’s condition and provided appropriate care and treatment in response to their deteriorating condition. We also found that the board’s decision to refer A to another heath board was reasonable and that there was no indication this should have been done earlier.

As such, we did not uphold this complaint. We did, however, provide feedback to the board regarding their communication with A.

Summary

C complained on behalf of their late parent (A) who died following surgery to remove cancerous tissue. C said that the care and treatment that A received in hospital was not reasonable, and that A’s cancer should have been detected earlier. C believed there were failings in the management of A’s care which caused A pain, distress and discomfort and this was worsened by the standard of nursing care.

We took independent advice from two appropriately qualified advisers. We found that the diagnosis concerning the spread of cancer was reasonable and did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.

In relation to nursing care, we found that there was a lack of accurate and appropriate pressure assessments, and a lack of timely interventions led to the development of severe pressure damage. There was inappropriate wound management causing deterioration to wounds and poor observation of urinary output. We also found that the standard of record-keeping was unreasonable, that national pressure ulcer prevention standards and relevant policy were not followed and there was delay in referring to specialists. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the standard of nursing care provide to A, for failing to carry out appropriate assessments to prevent severe pressure damage, failing to provide appropriate wound management, failing to appropriately monitor urine output, delaying referrals and failing to follow relevant standards and policy. 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 wound chart should be completed for each wound detailing size, tissue type present, treatment and treatment objectives.
• Fluid balance charts should be completed to acceptable standard for early recognition of fluid balance issues.
• Pressure ulcer risk assessments should be calculated properly on admission and reassessments recorded at least weekly and when clinical condition changes.
• Sufficient information should be given to a patient and or their family to allow them to make an informed choice when deciding to decline pressure relieving interventions. This should be recorded in the case notes.
• Tissue viability referrals should be made in line with the relevant national guidance.

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 was referred to Raigmore Hospital by their midwife with high blood pressure. C was pregnant and there were concerns they had pre-eclampsia (a condition that causes high blood pressure during pregnancy and after labour). C said that on attending the hospital they did not receive reasonable treatment over a four-day period. C also considered the care provided to their newborn child (A) was unreasonable.

We took independent advice from a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist (a doctor who specialises in pregnancy, childbirth and the female reproductive system) and a consultant neonatologist (a doctor who specialises in the medical care of newborn infants, especially ill or premature newborns). We found that the tests carried out when C attended the ward were reasonable and in line with relevant guidelines. We considered it was reasonable that C was initially discharged prior to their later admission and when C’s condition worsened, appropriate action was taken. As such, we did not uphold this complaint.

In relation to C's concerns about A's health, we considered that the actions taken after concerns were raised about A’s condition were reasonable. While we considered that the communication and documentation was below a reasonable standard, the clinical care provided to A was reasonable. As such, we did not uphold this complaint. However, feedback was provided to the board.

C complained that the board failed to reasonably respond to their complaint. We found that while the response to the complaint was accurate in relation to the medical records, it would have been good practice to provide more detail as to the board's position on certain points. A consultant spoke with C after events and arranged for further details to be provided regarding A’s care, which was good practice, particularly considering the board had identified communication issues. While further detail could have been given, and we provided feedback to the board on this point, on balance, we found the response to be reasonable. As such, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment provided to their late parent (A). A attended Raigmore Hospital with symptoms including lethargy, bruising and weight loss. A was found to be severely anaemic (a low level of red blood cells) and had a very low platelet count (small cells that help the blood to clot). A was asked to attend Caithness General Hospital for regular platelet treatment and further investigations into their condition.

Around a month later, A became unwell and they attended A&E at Caithness General Hospital. A was discharged home the same morning. Two days later, C became concerned about A as they looked 'black and blue'. C phoned the consultant haematologist (a specialist in diseases of the blood and bone marrow) for advice. They told C to contact A's GP if they were concerned about A's condition. By the next morning, A had become very unwell and they were taken to Caithness General Hospital by ambulance. A was found to have intracranial bleeding (bleeding within the skull). A was airlifted to Aberdeen Royal Infirmary that evening for platelet treatment. A's condition continued to worsen and they died the next day.

We took independent advice from a consultant haematologist. We found that there was no evidence A was told about the possible complications they could develop from their low platelet count, such as the risk of internal bleeding. We found A was unreasonably discharged home from Caithness General Hospital, as they should have been referred for emergency platelet treatment. In relation to C's phone call to the consultant haematologist, we acknowledged a GP should normally be the first point of contact. However, we considered appropriate action was not taken in response to the phone call, given C had described signs of A having internal bleeding. For these reasons, we upheld the 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:

• If a patient/family member contacts a clinician with information that indicates they are seriously unwell, this should be recognised and appropriate action should be taken.
• Patients at risk of developing serious complications should be given clear information about that, and it should be appropriately documented in their medical records.
• Patients, who are found to have low platelet levels, should be referred for timely and appropriate platelet treatment.
• The board’s complaint handling monitoring and governance system should ensure that failings (and good practice) are identified; and that learning from complaints is used to drive service development and improvement.

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.