North East Scotland

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about the treatment her late husband (Mr C) received from his General Practitioner (GP 2) and at Ninewells Hospital, Dundee (the Hospital).  Mrs C complained this led to an unreasonable delay in diagnosing that Mr C was suffering from colon cancer, which later spread to his liver.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) there was delay by GP 2 in referring Mr C to the Hospital in January 2004 (not upheld);
• (b) there was delay by the Hospital in diagnosing Mr C’s cancer (upheld); and
• (c) there was delay by the Hospital in obtaining the results of a CT scan (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that Tayside NHS Board (the Board):

• (i) issue Mrs C with a full formal apology for the failures identified in part (b) of the complaint and for the distress that this caused. The apology should be in accordance with the Ombudsman's guidance note on 'apology' (which sets out what is meant and what is required for a meaningful apology);
• (ii) review their procedures for the reporting of CT scan results, particularly where more than one hospital is involved, to ensure that delay in reporting such results, such as occurred with Mr C, does not recur; and
• (iii) issue Mrs C with a full formal apology for the failures identified in part (c) of the complaint and for the distress and anxiety that this caused. The apology should be in accordance with the Ombudsman's guidance note on 'apology' (which sets out what is meant and what is required for a meaningful apology).

The Board have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) was concerned that he had to wait two years for an operation to remove a benign acoustic neuroma (a tumour which develops on the eighth cranial/hearing nerve), which he felt was an unacceptable amount of time.  He was also concerned that no follow-up or review had been conducted within those two years.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Mr C had to wait two years for an operation to remove a benign acoustic neuroma (upheld); and
• (b) Mr C was seen only once by a consultant, in October 2005, and received no follow-up or review of his condition after that (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i) apologise to Mr C for their failure to arrange his surgery in a reasonable timescale and for the anxiety and distress this will have caused; and
• (ii) apologise to Mr C for their failure to arrange a review of his condition and for the anxiety and distress this will have caused.

The Board have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Miss C) was concerned that the cause of her abdominal pain was not diagnosed despite several admissions to Victoria Infirmary (the Hospital) and that not all necessary investigations had been carried out.  Miss C also raised issues regarding Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board (the Board)'s communication with her and her mother and regarding the accuracy of the Board's response to her complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Board failed to diagnose the cause of Miss C's abdominal pain and to carry out all necessary investigations (not upheld);
• (b) the Board failed to communicate properly with Miss C and her mother during an admission between 22 February 2007 and 5 March 2007 (partially upheld to the extent that Miss C's return to the ward on 5 March 2007 was not adequately managed); and
• (c) the letter responding to Miss C's complaint contained inaccuracies (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised a number of concerns regarding her medical care and treatment during investigations of painful sensations in her throat.  Ms C specifically complained about the length of time it had taken for her to be referred for an endoscopy; the actions of the gastroenterology department when she attended for pH studies and oesophageal motility studies and the length of time it had taken for a Consultant (the Consultant) to notify her of the results of a Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology (FNAC) examination.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) there was an unreasonable delay in referring Ms C for an endoscopy (not upheld);
• (b) the gastroenterology department unreasonably continued with a procedure despite the changes that had occurred in Ms C's condition since the referral had been made (not upheld); and
• (c) the Consultant unreasonably delayed notifying Ms C of the results of a FNAC examination (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about the treatment her late son, Mr A, received at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary for a heart condition.  In particular Mrs C complained that, although doctors first realised there was a problem with Mr A's heart in December 2004, no active cardiac treatment was commenced until May 2006.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that, between December 2004 and May 2006, Mr A received inadequate treatment from staff in relation to his heart problems (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board apologise to Mrs C for the failure to perform a left sided catheterisation of Mr A's heart in February 2005.

The Board have accepted the recommendation and will act on it accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) suffered shoulder pain following a fall at home on 3 January 2006.  She attended Accident and Emergency (A&E) at Ninewells Hospital.  Examination of her shoulder revealed no new injuries and she was allowed to return home on the basis that a pre-existing frozen shoulder was the root cause.  Ms C said that she continued to experience a great deal of pain despite ongoing treatment for her frozen shoulder.  An x-ray in May 2006 showed that she had fractured her humerus.  Ms C complained that an x-ray should have been taken during her A&E attendance on 3 January 2006.  She felt that failure to take an x-ray prolonged her pain and delayed the operation that she required to repair her humerus.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that Tayside NHS Board:

• (a) failed to properly diagnose and treat Ms C's painful shoulder (not upheld); and
• (b) failed to provide emergency treatment to Ms C upon her arrival at A&E (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) was concerned that the podiatry treatment she received at a podiatry clinic (the Clinic) was inappropriate.  Mrs C complained that her bunion had been cut into against her wishes and that the same scalpel had been used to treat two different parts of her foot.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) a podiatrist (the Podiatrist) cut into Mrs C's bunion against her wishes (not upheld); and
• (b) the scalpel used to cut into Mrs C's bunion was the same as that which had been used to cut into her toenail (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) was referred to a consultant orthopaedic surgeon (Consultant 1) at the Southern General Hospital in Glasgow for a diagnosis of the knee pain she had been suffering for some time.  Because the pain continued, she then saw a private consultant who recommended treatment which proved successful.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Consultant 1 incorrectly diagnosed Ms C's knee condition, leading to damage which could have been prevented if a correct diagnosis had been made earlier (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant, Mrs C, visited the medical practice (the Practice) with her three year old grandson (Child A), who was unwell, and was seen by the doctor (the GP).  After examining Child A, the GP diagnosed that he had tonsillitis.  The GP then asked Mrs C to have Child A's parents contact him as he wished to address the issue of 'targeted kicks' from the child towards the GP during the consultation.  Mrs C was unhappy with the GP's attitude and complained to the Practice Manager.  She remained unhappy with the response to her complaint, which was sent by the GP, and asked the Ombudsman to investigate.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) it was unreasonable for the GP to complain about being kicked by ChildA (upheld); and
• (b) the handling of, and response to, Mrs C's complaint by the Practice was unreasonable (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that:

• (i) the GP should make a full formal written apology to Mrs C for the distress caused to her following the consultation;
• (ii) the GP should consult with the Director of General Practice Postgraduate Education (or his Deputy) to discuss, identify and participate in training and developmental initiatives designed to improve his consultation and communication skills;
• (iii) the Practice should revise their 'Practice Complaints Procedure' to ensure that patients are made aware that they may request that their complaint is investigated and responded to by someone other than the person complained about. This review should also include the development of a process to investigate and address each part of a complaint made before a response is issued; and
• (iv) the Practice should communicate the updated Complaints Procedure in a revised 'Practice Information' leaflet.

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, raised a number of concerns about his General Practitioner (GP 1) following a consultation in August 2005.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) GP 1 behaved unprofessionally towards Mr C during the consultation (upheld);
• (b) GP 1 unfairly removed Mr C from the medical practice (the Practice)'s patient list (upheld); and
• (c) GP 1's response to a complaint from Mr C's daughter was unsatisfactory (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that:

• (i) GP 1 should make a full formal written apology to Mr C for failing to deal with him in a professional manner and for the distress caused to Mr C and his family in pursuing this matter;
• (ii) GP 1 should consult with the Director of General Practice Postgraduate Education (or his deputy) to discuss, identify and participate in training and developmental initiatives designed to improve his consultation and communication skills;
• (iii) GP 1 should make a full formal written apology to Mr C for removing him unfairly from the Practice patient list;
• (iv) the Practice should reflect on this case and reconsider their policy for removing patients. This revised policy should be open to the patient population and advertised in a revised 'Practice Information' leaflet;
• (v) the Practice should revise their 'Practice Complaints Procedure' to ensure that patients are made aware that they can ask for their complaint, and the response, to be handled by someone other than the person complained about; and
• (vi) the Practice should communicate the revised complaints procedure in a revised 'Practice Information' leaflet.