Health

Summary

C complained to the board about the midwifery care and treatment that they received during and following the birth of their baby. In particular, C complained that they had been unsupported during the birth, that their birth plan had not been followed, that the umbilical cord had snapped during delivery and that no meeting had been arranged to discuss the incident despite requesting one. C also complained that there had been a failure to recognise that this had been a traumatic incident for them, and that the board’s response to the complaint had lacked empathy.

The board’s response advised that C had been assisted during the birth, however they apologised that C's expectations had not been met at the time. The board also apologised that it had not been understood that C had intended to use the water pool for pain relief only, and that they did not want to give birth in the pool. In relation to the cord snapping, the board explained that this had been recognised as an emergency incident straight away, but on reflection, the emergency buzzer could have been activated sooner. In terms of communication, the board explained that the circumstances of the birth had been discussed with C by the delivery midwife during a post-natal visit to C's home. When a further meeting was requested, the board said a meeting date had initially been offered by text message which C declined. In hindsight, the board recognised it would have been better to arrange this with C by phone. It was further explained that C had been given contact details to arrange discussion with a consultant in keeping with their request, however C had not gone on to take up that offer.

We took independent advice from a consultant of obstetrics and gynaecology. We found that a minimum standard of care had not been met on this occasion. We noted that key aspects of the medical notes and birth plan had not been read, as C’s preference not to birth in the pool was clearly documented but had not been known by the midwife. In reference to the cord snapping, we found that it can snap spontaneously after either an attended or unattended birth, and in the pool or out. It was difficult to say what this was attributable to the birth, nevertheless bringing the baby above the surface of the water was likely to have been more important than care of the cord. We highlighted that the board’s complaint response had said it was recognised by the midwife that the cord snapping was an emergency incident, however we could see no evidence from the notes of an acute crisis.

In reference to communication, we found that the board had recognised that it would have been better to phone C rather than text them to arrange a time to discuss their concerns. We found that it would have been better for the board to arrange the debrief meeting with the consultant, rather than to expect C to arrange this themselves. On balance, we upheld C’s complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings identified in this decision notice. 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:

• Midwifery care should be informed by the patient’s records.
• Midwifery care should be clearly and accurately recorded and include reference to any incidents and the actions taken in response.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaint responses should be clear and fully respond to the issues raised. This should include a full explanation of what occurred and a description of what happened and/or what should have happened at the time.
• The board should offer C a debrief meeting at a mutually convenient time to discuss the events which occurred and to answer C’s questions regarding the circumstances of the birth.

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 about the care and treatment that they received from the board prior to and during the birth of their child (A). C complained that the midwives were dismissive of their pain levels during labour, failed to properly assess their condition, was wrongly sent home to allow labour to progress, and that staff denied their requests for an epidural. C also complained about the poor communication from the clinical team when they were in theatre for a caesarean section.

The board said that they considered the decision to send C home was made in line with current guidelines but apologised if the reasons for the decision were not communicated at the time. The board explained that C’s request for an epidural was not actioned as labour was progressing rapidly and consideration was being given as to whether an emergency caesarean section was required.

We took independent advice from a midwifery specialist. We found that the midwifery care provided to C was reasonable. We noted that the board apologised for some shortcomings in the care provided and that this was a reasonable response. Overall, we were satisfied that the decisions taken by the midwives were based on a reasonable assessment of C’s presenting condition. In respect of the medical care provided during the birth, we acknowledged that there may have been a lack of clarity around the consent process, however, overall, we did not find any significant shortcomings in the clinical care and treatment provided to C. We did not uphold C’s complaints.

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment that they received in respect of their cancer. C was diagnosed with colorectal cancer which had spread to their liver and required surgery. The surgery was to be performed in two stages. C complained that the second surgery was not performed within a reasonable timescale and about poor pain relief following the second surgery.

The board apologised to C for the poor communication about the arrangements for the second surgery and explained that repeating imaging was required before arranging the surgery and that they did not consider the delay to be significant. The board provided an overview of the pain relief provided and noted that any issues identified were addressed at the time.

We took independent advice from a colorectal and surgical consultant. We found that communication with C about when they could reasonably expect to have their second surgery was poor and there was an unexplained delay in their case being reviewed by the multi-disciplinary team. This resulted in a delay of around one month, however we did not consider this would have caused further spread of C’s cancer. We upheld this complaint.

We noted that there were some issues with the equipment used to deliver pain relief post surgery, however these were rectified and appropriate additional pain relief was provided promptly. We found the post surgical care and treatment provided to be reasonable and we did not uphold this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the issues 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:

• That the board review their approach to communication with patients to ensure that cancer patients are proactively kept informed of progress in their treatment plan.
• That the board review their processes for prioritising the review of important cases by the MDT to ensure that such cases are progressed without delay.

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, an advocate, complained on behalf of A about treatment that they received after sustaining a knee injury. A ruptured the anterior cruciate ligament (ligament connecting the thigh bone to the shin bone) and underwent an arthroscopy of the knee (a type of keyhole surgery). This was followed up with a second surgery at a later date to complete the reconstruction of the ligament.

During the surgery, the surgeon’s scalpel snapped and to remove the tip of the blade, the surgeon had to create a larger incision. C raised concerns about the actions taken following the incident. The board acknowledged the incident and explained that damage to instruments is a rare but known complication of surgery.

We took independent advice from a consultant orthopaedic surgeon. We found that when the blade snapped, appropriate care was provided to A. It was appropriate to create a larger incision and the incident was appropriately communicated to A. However, we found that whilst a datix incident report was completed, a more in-depth investigation could have been carried out. There was no evidence that the board considered either the possibility of improper use of the instrument or that there was a defect in the instrument. We also considered that the board should have discussed the incident at a departmental level. In conclusion, we upheld C’s complaint about care and treatment in relation to the initial surgery. We did not uphold the complaint about the post operative care provided to A as we were satisfied it was reasonable.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to A for failing to thoroughly investigate the adverse event where by the scalpel broke during A’s surgery. 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:

• Operation notes should be sufficiently detailed, particularly when an adverse event has occurred.
• The board should ensure that adverse events are thoroughly investigated and that appropriate reflection and learning is identified.

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 spouse (A) who was admitted to hospital with pain, spams and weakness in their right leg which was later diagnosed as being caused by an infection in the iliopsoas muscles (a group of muscles running from the lower spine to the thigh). A is a dialysis patient and had also previously suffered a stroke, leaving them with weakness on the right side and wheelchair bound. C therefore usually supports A with dialysis and medication.

The complaint centres around an incident in the first week of A’s admission when both C and a nurse separately administered A’s evening medication. C stated that they had previously been given the medication by ward staff to support A. C had administered the evening medication and gone out for a few hours. On return, they had found A to be unresponsive. A nurse said that they had also administered evening medication. C complained that this overdose of medication had occurred and that record keeping and incident management had been unreasonable.

We took independent advice from a nursing adviser. We considered that this incident should not have happened, and that it indicated a lack of clarity, process, recording and communication within the ward.

We found that record keeping before and after the incident had been lacking, as there had been no clear record in a person centred care plan to state that the medication was being held and administered by C, that there had been a 24 hour gap in nursing records over the period of the incident and that no extra observations or conversations with a doctor had been recorded following the incident. We found that categorisation and management of the incident had been unreasonable. We upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C and A for poor record keeping. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Apologise to C and A that an extra dose of medication was administered. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

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 about the care and treatment that they received from the board’s neurology department. C had been reporting symptoms to the board for several years before obtaining spinal surgery abroad. After surgery, C experienced improvement in their symptoms. C complained that the board did not reasonably investigate or offer treatment for their symptoms.

We took independent advice from a neurologist and neuroradiologist (a specialist in reading medical images of the spine). We found that the board had reasonably investigated C’s symptoms and offered reasonable treatment for C’s symptoms. We found that there was no missed opportunity to identify any physical problem in C’s spine that may have caused C’s symptoms, based on MR (magnetic resonance, a type of medical imaging) images of C’s spine. Therefore, we did not uphold C’s complaint.

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment that their late parent (A) received from the board. C complained that the board failed to reasonably treat an ulcer on A’s toe or manage their related pain. C also complained that A was unreasonably transferred to a nursing home from the ward when they were too frail and unwell to leave the care of the hospital. C advised that the communication with them in relation to A’s transfer was unreasonable, both in the way the matter was discussed with them by the social worker and as the ward failed to explain that their parent was nearing the end of his life. C said that they were only made aware of this by a GP at the nursing home who explained A was receiving end of life care.

The board's response to C’s complaint confirmed that A had received treatment for their toe ulcer during their inpatient admission, with follow-up treatment planned following their discharge to the nursing home.

On the matter of A’s referral to nursing home care, the board advised that this had been discussed with C by phone. The board said that the documentation of the phone call reflected that C was in agreement with the plan, with the purpose of the referral being to arrange long term care for A. Prior to discharge, A was reviewed by a ward doctor and it was determined that they were fit for discharge based on their improving blood results following a recent chest infection and as their observations were stable. The board expressed regret that A returned to hospital 10 days later having deteriorated since leaving hospital.

We took independent advice from a consultant physician and geriatrician. We found that a plan to manage A’s toe ulcer had been put in place and that they advised that A had received pain relief as required. We considered that the plan of care made by the board was reasonable.

In reference to A’s discharge to the nursing home, we found that this had been arranged in discussion with C, noting that A was not suitable for further rehabilitation, and that their cognitive function now prevented them from living safely at home. We considered the plan of care made for A in terms of their long term care needs was reasonable and in keeping with their circumstances. Therefore, we considered that the care and treatment provided by the board to A had been reasonable. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment that they received from the board following a stillbirth. C complained that the board had failed to provide them with adequate support following the birth of their child. C also complained that a consultant had acted unreasonably by discussing their child’s post mortem results with them, without prior warning and without the presence of their partner, during a consultation several months later to discuss the progress of a new pregnancy.

The board did not identify any failings with the support provided to C. However, they apologised for the distress caused to C during the meeting with the consultant. They said that the consultant was required to make a plan of care for the new pregnancy and that this inadvertently led to the discussion and counselling of C’s previous pregnancy. The Board said that C’s partner was unable to attend the meeting due to restrictions on hospital visiting in force at the time due to the pandemic.

C remained unhappy and asked us to investigate. C complained that the support provided to them was inadequate. C also complained that the consultant had acted unreasonably.

We took independent advice from a consultant obstetrician. We found that inpatient care discharge arrangements, including handover of C’s care to community midwives was as expected. We did not uphold this complaint. However, we found that there had been a failure to adequately prepare for C’s consultation. In the circumstances, we found that it was unreasonable to have progressed with C’s consultation without offering them the choice of re-scheduling so that consideration could have been made to their partner attending, or offering a remote appointment. We upheld this 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:

• The findings of this investigation should be fed back to the staff involved, in a supportive manner, for reflection and learning.

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 about the practice on behalf of their spouse (A). A is paraplegic (affected by or relating to paralysis of the legs and lower body) and was receiving district nursing treatment for various wounds, including one on the large toe of their left foot. The condition of A’s left foot deteriorated and they were showing signs of infection. A was seen by a district nurse who took photographs of A's foot and showed them to the duty GP at the practice. The GP made an urgent referral to vascular surgery, which was sent the next day, but did not assess A themselves or communicate the management plan to them. A’s condition worsened and a few days later they required immediate admission to hospital and urgent surgery. A subsequently required amputation of some of their toes. C complained that A’s outcome may have been better had they been assessed by the duty GP and/or admitted to hospital the same day.

We took independent GP advice. We were not critical of the fact the duty GP did not carry out a face to face assessment of A. We found that the GP followed the relevant guidelines by making an urgent referral to vascular surgery, which was a reasonable assessment. However, we found that the GP should also have made direct contact with the vascular surgery team for advice as to whether A required to be seen the same day. We found that the GP also should have communicated their management plan to A and to C, as they acknowledged in their complaint response. This would have allowed the opportunity to raise any concerns with the GP directly. On balance, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C and A for the communication failings we have 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:

• When making an urgent referral to vascular surgery for a patient with critical limb ischaemia, GPs should contact the vascular team directly for advice as to whether same day assessment is required. GPs should discuss the management plan with the patient.

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, an advocate, submitted a complaint on behalf of the family of A. A was a resident of a care home and attended hospital with low potassium levels. A later sustained a leg fracture around the time of the first discharge and was re-admitted to hospital. A later died. C complained that the nursing and medical care provided by the board was unreasonable.

We took independent advice from a nurse, consultant orthopaedic surgeon and consultant geriatrician. We found that there were failings in the nursing and medical care provided and that the board failed to carry out a reasonable investigation into the concerns raised. We also found that A did not receive appropriate care and treatment after they sustained a leg fracture. Specifically, there was a lack of recorded consultant input, delays in having a second cast fitted and delays with A being discharged afterward.

In addition, the concerns raised regarding how the leg fracture occurred weren’t appropriately investigated across multiple agencies and it took a number of contacts by both C and the SPSO before a full response was provided. Therefore, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to A’s family for the failings identified in relation to the investigation and treatment of A’s fracture and their discharge from hospital. 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:

• Consultant ward rounds, particularly at the weekend, should review all patients and should be documented.
• Frail elderly patients with fractures should receive appropriate orthogeriatric support.
• Patients should be discharged as soon as clinically appropriate following treatment.
• When harm comes to a patient and there are multiple organisations involved as to where the injury may have occurred, a multi-agency review is carried out in a timeous manner.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Evidence that the learning from this complaint has been shared at an Acute Sector Clinical Governance Group.
• Evidence that the learning from this complaint has been shared via the Acute Sector Clinical Risk Management Group.
• Evidence that the learning from this complaint has been shared via the Board’s Clinical Governance structures.

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.