Health

Summary

C complained about their care and treatment following a hysterectomy (a surgical procedure to remove all or a part of the uterus). C complained that they were not provided with adequate pain relief following the surgery, and that they were not fitted with an abdominal drain (a thin plastic tube which is inserted into an abnormal collection of fluid to help remove it from the body). C was discharged a few days later but disputes whether they were fit to be discharged home at this point. C was later readmitted suffering from a blood clot and an infection. C was discharged with oral antibiotics and again disputes whether they were fit to be discharged at this point.

A few days later, C began to bleed heavily. An ambulance was called but the wait was likely to be significant and C was taken to hospital by their partner. C was triaged but asked to sit on a chair in a corridor, despite suffering from obvious heavy vaginal bleeding. C was reviewed by a consultant and sent up to the gynaecology ward where they were then taken for emergency surgery.

We took independent advice from a consultant obstetrician (specialists in pregnancy and childbirth) and a consultant in emergency medicine. We found that C received a reasonable standard of care following their surgery and was appropriately discharged on both occasions. Therefore, we did not uphold these parts of C's complaint.

In relation to C's attendance at A&E, we found that they were not triaged sufficiently quickly and the way C was asked to wait was not appropriate given their condition. C was medically assessed within an appropriate timescale within A&E and appropriately transferred. The board had accepted there were failings in C's care, but they had not set out clearly how they planned to address these issues. Therefore, we upheld this part of C's complaint.

C also complained that the board failed to handle their complaint reasonably. We found that the board handled C's complaint appropriately and did not uphold this part of their complaint.

Recommendations

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Complete an assessment of the delay in triaging C.
• The board should consider what it can do to improve the experience of patients who require privacy when awaiting medical assessment.

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 provided to their late partner (A). A had a history of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD, a group of lung conditions that cause breathing difficulties). A was suffering from constipation which was treated by the district nursing team at home. When this did not resolve, A was admitted to hospital for review and treatment of their constipation. C said they asked that A be treated and discharged home as quickly as possible. A fell whilst in hospital and fractured their shoulder. A developed a chest infection and subsequently died in hospital.

C believed A's condition could have been treated in the community. C felt A's vulnerability had not been recognised by nursing or clinical staff in hospital. C said that A had been designated as an adult with incapacity (AWI) and do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) without discussion with them as A's power of attorney (POA). C felt A's fall was avoidable had staff listened to the family's requests for 1-to-1 nursing.

We took advice from a registered nurse and a consultant respiratory physician. We found that A was not provided with a reasonable standard of nursing care in the community, as more could have been done to treat their constipation at home. Therefore, we upheld this part of C's complaint.

In relation to A's care while in hospital, we found both the standard of nursing and medical care to be reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold these part's of C's complaint.

In relation to communication with C as A's next of kin and POA, we found there was a lack of communication regarding A's care and in particular decisions around designating A as AWI and DNACPR. Therefore, we upheld this part of C's complaint.

Finally, we found that A's death certificate should have included the fall as a secondary factor in their death. Initially it was believed that C would need to request this amendment, but the responsibility in fact lay with the board, who have been asked to ensure that the death certificate is amended. We upheld this part of C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the issues highlighted in this decision. 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 develop a bowel management guideline to ensure appropriate prescribing and escalation if no response to treatment. This should include clear escalation pathways for patients with deteriorating health.
• That the board remind the clinical team of the importance of discussing and recording discussions about DNACPR and AWI decisions with patients and their next of in/powers of attorney, including ensuring that all parties understand how and why the decision has been reached.
• The responsible consultant should contact the Death Certificate Advisory Service and have the full amendment made as soon as possible.

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 provided to their late spouse (A). A was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. C was unhappy with the delays with A's treatment and said that these prevented A from receiving any treatment before their death.

The board said that their intention was to treat the cancer and that A was required to meet with a consultant to assess their fitness for surgery. The board said that the delay in meeting with a consultant was to allow the health board to carry out two multidisciplinary meetings, for some of A's symptoms (such as jaundice) to improve, and for other investigations and procedures to be carried out (such as, imaging scans and the fitting of stents). The board acknowledged that there was a delay in a PET-CT scan (where a drug is injected before the scan to help clinicians identify how certain body functions are working) being carried out due to failures in the drug production. The board said that when this fails, there is no back-up facility in Scotland to provide a replacement batch.

We took independent clinical advice from a consultant colorectal and general surgeon. We found that the timeframe for A's treatment could have been improved even with the allowable delays from the PET-CT scan. We considered that the investigations carried out were reasonable and the early scan and procedure to fit a stent were good points in the treatment pathway. However, the length of the pathway could have been improved and A's lengthy pathway to the offer of chemotherapy was unreasonable. The timing of the clinic appointment and PET-CT could also have been improved. Whilst we recognise some of the delays experienced could not be predicted or avoided, on balance, the timescale for A's pathway was unreasonable. Therefore, we upheld C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the delay in assessing A's fitness for surgery and the impact this had on other investigations i.e. arranging a PET-CT scan, the delay in the PET-CT scan being carried out and A being identified as unsuitable for 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:

• Patients who are considered suitable for surgery should have early assessment to establish fitness for surgery.

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 they received from the board in relation to knee replacement surgery. C said that a surgeon failed to adequately advise them of the potential risks of a total knee replacement and therefore failed to obtain their informed consent for the operation. C also complained that the surgeon failed to adequately examine their leg either pre or post operatively. C said that they had experienced a mal-alignment of their leg as a result of the operation leading to significant pain and loss of mobility.

The board was unable to identify the cause of the mal-alignment of C's leg, but did not identify any failings in their care and treatment.

We took independent advice from a consultant orthopaedic surgeon (a specialist in the treatment of diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system). We found that, despite some failings, the consent process in C's case was reasonable. We also found no evidence that the board's surgeon failed to adequately examine C's leg either pre or post operatively. Therefore, we did not uphold these parts of C's complaint.

C also complained that the board failed to adequately investigate or respond to their complaint. We found that the board's complaint response was unreasonable and upheld this part of C's 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-leaflet.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaint investigations should be carried out in line with the NHS Model Complaints Handling Procedure. The investigation should be thorough, and the complaint response should be accurate in their findings and conclusions and supported by relevant evidence such as medical records. Where there have been failings in surgery, the case should be presented and discussed within a departmental surgical morbidity and mortality meeting.

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 B about the care and treatment provided to B's spouse (A) by the practice. A attended the practice on a number of occasions over a few years with ongoing and worsening abdominal and lower back pain. C complained that the practice assumed A was suffering from a musculoskeletal problem and failed to consider other diagnoses sooner. A was later diagnosed with lymphoma and died at the time of diagnosis.

In responding to C's complaint, the practice undertook a Significant Adverse Event Review (SAER) and noted it was not clear when the lymphoma started. The practice also found that A had several normal or reassuring examinations and tests, and that several of A's presentations and tests pointed towards other diagnoses including liver disease and prostate disease. The SAER ultimately concluded that it seemed very unlikely that A had lymphoma for a long period of time given the very aggressive nature of their disease.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that a number of tests and investigations were reported as normal and therefore there was no cause to refer A to specialists on suspicion of cancer. However, when concerns were raised about a possible missed renal cause for A's pain, we found that further investigations should have been undertaken at this time. These did not occur until almost a month later. A was suffering from an aggressive and difficult to diagnose cancer and, while the care and treatment provided by the practice was generally considered to be reasonable, the review should have triggered further tests at the time. On balance, we upheld C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to B for the issues identified in this decision. 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 practice share this decision notice with their GPs with a view to identifying any points of 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, an advocacy worker, complained on behalf of A about the care and treatment they received from the board. A had been referred to the Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) department when they noticed a growth on their neck. A was diagnosed with a positive squamous cell cancer (type of cancer that starts as a growth of cells on the skin) in their left tonsil which had spread to their neck lymph nodes. C complained about the standard of communication from the ENT department and a failure to provide appropriate treatment which they considered led to A's terminal diagnosis.

The board provided an overview of the care and treatment provided and were satisfied that appropriate care was provided. Due to the metastatic nature (spread) of A's cancer, the only treatment available was palliative. The board also noted there was regular communication with A and they were copied into letters that were sent to A's GP.

We took independent advice from a consultant ENT surgeon. We found that the clinical decision making with regards to treatment for A's cancer was appropriate and clearly set out in the records. While we recognised that A may have been under the impression that their cancer had been successfully treated, we were satisfied that the records documented detailed discussions which took place between clinical staff and A on multiple occasions regarding their diagnosis and treatment plan. We acknowledged it was possible that A may not have understood the complex and technical terminology used, however overall, we did not find that the clinical team failed to communicate with A. As such, we did not uphold C's complaints.

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment provided to their late partner (A) by the board. A had been diagnosed with anorectal cancer which had spread to their liver and was treated over several admissions to hospital. A died while receiving in-patient care. C complained that the board had failed to provide A with reasonable care and treatment while they were an in-patient. C also complained that the board had failed to communicate adequately with them.

The board did not identify any failings in A's care and treatment. However, they apologised for an aspect of their communication with C regarding A's diagnosis. C remained unhappy and asked us to investigate. C complained that clinician's had failed to take adequate action in the face of A's condition and that there had been a failure to provide adequate nursing care for A's stoma. C also complained about aspects of the board's communication regarding A's condition and death certificate.

We took independent advice from a consultant physician in acute internal medicine and a nurse. We found that the clinical and nursing care provided to A was reasonable. We found that the board's communication with A regarding their condition was also reasonable. Due to conflicting evidence we were unable to make findings about other aspects of the board's communication. Therefore, we did not uphold C's complaints but fed back to the board about keeping clear and accurate records of communication.

Summary

C, a support and advocacy worker, complained on behalf of their client (A). A had undergone breast surgery to remove nodes and C complained that the board did not adequately assess and manage A's wound when it showed signs of infection. The wound deteriorated and A became critically unwell with sepsis.

The board carried out a Significant Adverse Event Review (SAER), in which A expected greater involvement. C also complained that the SAER failed to identify that the incident met the Duty of Candour threshold and did not address the key issue, which was the inadequate care provided. The board stated the staff involved used their clinical judgement to assess the wound, which did not show signs of infection. However, it was difficult to investigate the adequacy of the wound assessment due to the omission of notes they made. The board acknowledged communication between health care professionals was impeded by a reliance on a paper-based system and the clinical record keeping was inadequate.

The board further advised the SAER was a formal process, which did not allow for A's inclusion and maintained the incident did not meet the Duty of Candour threshold. They considered the SAER to be adequate, as an investigation had taken place that had identified a number of learning points and recommendations.

We took independent clinical advice from a registered nurse specialising in tissue viability. We found the wound assessment to be inadequate, leading to a missed opportunity for appropriate wound management and that those involved in A's care lacked knowledge of current best practice in terms of wound assessment, wound management and antimicrobial stewardship. We also found the SAER to be inadequate as it failed to address the key issues of wound assessment, wound management and antimicrobial stewardship and failed to identify the incident met the Duty of Candour threshold.

As such, we upheld C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to A 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:

• A person centred approach should be adopted.
• For all patients with a wound to have an adequate wound assessment undertaken and documented in a formal wound assessment chart. This should be in line with the following guidance Vale of Leven Inquiry Scottish Government Recommendations 2015NMC: The Code 201Scottish Ropper Ladder for Infected Wounds 2020 and HIS Scottish Wound Assessment and Action Guide 2021.
• A Duty of Candour Investigation to be undertaken, unless there is definitive evidence that the UTI caused the sepsis as wound deterioration is still a strong possibility.
• All staff involved in wound management are competent in appropriate management and familiar with the relevant guidance.
• Pathway to be developed to ensure timely referral to tissue viability specialist for deteriorating or non-healing wounds.
• Recommendations added to the SAER to address learning and improvement around wound assessment, management and antimicrobial stewardship.
• Staff to be reminded of Stage 3 of the Scottish Ropper Ladder for Infected Wounds, and consideration of antibiotics.

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 provided by the practice. C was diagnosed with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS, a condition that affects the function of the ovaries) a number of years ago and had previously had an ovarian cyst removed. Over the following years, C experienced a number of symptoms, including abdominal pain which the practice attributed to irritable bowel syndrome (IBS, a common condition that affects the digestive system). C complained that the practice did not explore a potential link to their PCOS. C attended A&E with severe pain. It was identified that C had a large ovarian cyst which required surgery. C complained that the practice's failure to diagnose the cyst exacerbated their symptoms and led to prolonged pain and discomfort. C also complained about poor postoperative care by the practice.

The practice confirmed they were satisfied that their treatment of C's symptoms was appropriate in the circumstances and explained that the NHS does not offer routine surveillance scans for patients with PCOS or to patients who have a history of cysts.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that prior to C's attendance at A&E, there was no significant evidence of a cyst and in the absence of any other clinical indication it was reasonable to attribute C's symptoms to IBS. With regard to C's concern about the postoperative care provided, we noted that the practice diagnosed an incisional hernia and referred C to the Surgical Admissions Unit where an ultrasound was carried out but failed to show anything. A subsequent CT scan identified three hernias. We concluded that the GP's presumed diagnosis of a hernia was reasonable and therefore C was appropriately referred to the Surgical Admissions Unit. Overall, we were satisfied that the care and treatment provided to C was reasonable and we did not uphold C's complaints.

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment provided to their spouse (A) by the out-of-hours (OOH) service. A had a headache, temperature and dizziness and collapsed twice. The OOH GP spoke with A and A's family and prescribed painkillers for their headache. A later started hallucinating and the OOH service sent an advanced nurse practitioner who diagnosed A with a urine infection. A was later taken to hospital where they died from organ failure a few weeks later.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that it was reasonable for the GP have carried out a telephone consultation instead of a home visit and that the telephone assessment conducted appears to have been reasonable. We also considered that it was reasonable for the OOH GP to have obtained a medical history from A and A's family and that given the symptoms described and the results of the urine test, the diagnosis of a urine infection was reasonable, as was treatment with antibiotics rather than admission to hospital. We also found it reasonable that a Significant Adverse Event Review was not considered given that there were no direct issues raised with the OOH service at the time of events.

We did not uphold C's complaint but provided feedback to the board that the notes of the telephone consultation were inadequate given that reasonable record keeping is an integral part of patient care.