Overview
The complainant, Mr C raised a number of concerns associated with the removal of two facial lesions.
Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:
- (a) Mr C was not told that the procedure undertaken on 8 July 2005 involved a large scale biopsy (not upheld);
- (b) Mr C was told that a basal cell carcinoma (BCC) was being removed from his lip whereas his notes refer to it being a squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) (not upheld);
- (c) the procedure to Mr C's lip was undertaken without proper investigation, which involved increased risk (not upheld);
- (d) there was belated acknowledgement that the words lip and lid had been transposed, and an insincere apology was offered (partially upheld);
- (e) Mr C had not been seen by a dermatologist or skin cancer specialist (not upheld);
- (f) the Board failed to admit errors or variations to Mr C's medical notes (not upheld);
- (g) the surgeon involved failed to communicate with Mr C properly (not upheld);
- (h) there were delays associated with Mr C's appointment times (not upheld); and
- (i) there were delays in responding to Mr C's complaint (not upheld).
Redress and recommendation
The Ombudsman recommends that;
- (i) in addition to discussing with the patient any surgical procedure, its possible outcomes and common complications, the Board should consider whether written information, reiterating information given, would enhance informed consent for the patient;
- (ii) a further apology is made to Mr C, to acknowledge the Board's initial failure to apologise to him in a timely manner; and
- (iii) the Board look to reducing the timescales between the dates of dictation, typing and issue of correspondence.
The Board have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.