Decision Report 201907505

  • Case ref:
    201907505
  • Date:
    January 2021
  • Body:
    Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board - Acute Services Division
  • Sector:
    Health
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    clinical treatment / diagnosis

Summary

C, an advocacy and advice worker, complained on behalf of their client (A) regarding A's admission to Queen Elizabeth University Hospital. A is a diabetic and had a gastric band procedure (a band is used to reduce the stomach's size, so a smaller amount of food is required to result in feeling full) completed privately several years prior to admission. This had been successful, however, A was having difficulty eating and was admitted as an emergency. A's surgical band was deflated. Subsequently, A's blood sugar level was not stable. A considered this was not monitored properly and they were also unhappy with the feeding regime put in place. The emergency team refused to re-inflate the gastric band and referred A to the Exceptional Bariatric Review to discuss bands filled in the private sector. A was unhappy with this decision as they wanted the band to be reflated afterwards.

We considered that A was admitted as an emergency and it was reasonable to resolve the urgent situation by deflating the gastric band, as it was pressing on A's oesophagus. However, when the emergency had been resolved, any refilling of the band would not be regarded as a medical emergency. We found that the board followed their policy when referring A to the Exceptional Bariatric Review for bands filled in the private sector. We also noted that when A was admitted as an emergency their blood sugar levels were unstable but this was monitored and treated appropriately, as A did not have diabetic ketoacidosis (a potentially life threatening complication of diabetes, which happens when the body starts running out of insulin). We also found that the feeding regime put in place was reasonable and that A was appropriately referred so that future weight management could be discussed. We did not uphold this complaint.

Updated: January 20, 2021