Overview
The complainant (Mrs C)'s late husband (Mr C) was given an angiogram test (which showed serious blockages in his heart arteries) in September 2004. She felt that he might have lived if he had had an angiogram in October 2003 because she felt that an earlier view of his arteries would have enabled him to have further treatment, such as surgery, earlier, when he would have had a better chance of survival. As it was, the later angiogram, and, therefore, the later diagnosis meant that by the time he had further treatment (surgery), he was at very high risk of not surviving it. Indeed, he did die shortly after such surgery.
Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is the timing of an angiogram (not upheld).
Redress and recommendation
The Ombudsman has no recommendation to make.