NHS in England Closed After Initial Enquiries Search on PHSO website

Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust

P-002551 · Statement · Decision date: 25 April 2024 · View Shrewsbury and Telford NHS Trust scorecard
Complaint (AI summary)
Mrs A complained a consultant failed to check her brace fitting and the Trust delayed replacing it, causing excessive swelling, pain, and delayed fracture treatment.
Outcome (AI summary)
The complaint was closed. The Ombudsman found no sign that anything went seriously wrong with the care and treatment provided by the Trust.

Full decision details

The Complaint

3. Mrs A complains about parts of the Trust’s care and treatment in November 2022. She complains:

• a consultant should have checked the fitting of her hinged brace on 4 November before she left the fracture clinic to go home • the Trust should have removed her hinged brace and replaced it with a soft cast before she left A&E on 7 November, rather than leaving her for another five to six hours until her appointment at the fracture clinic on 7 November.

4. Mrs A says the consultant not checking her hinged brace resulted in her leaving the hospital with it wrongly fitted. She says this meant her arm was obstructed and it caused excessive swelling and ballooning in her arm and hand. She tells us she was in unbearable pain and she had to have the hinged brace refitted which caused more pain. She says the delays removing the hinged brace made her symptoms worse and these lasted for just under two weeks.

5. Mrs A says what happened delayed the treatment for her fracture and she is concerned this also caused her to have three to four weeks longer off work to attend more appointments.

6. Mrs A says she would like the Trust to improve its service to stop this happening to anyone else.

Background

7. Mrs A had treatment at the Trust for a fracture of her left elbow (distal humerus) due to a fall at the beginning of October 2022 when she landed on her elbow.

8. Mrs A had a back slab (a cast made of plaster, wool and bandages) fitted in hospital at first (not the hospital Mrs A is complaining about). Mrs A then had several outpatient appointments at the Trust where it reviewed her progress. At her appointment on 4 November 2022, the doctor she saw removed her back slab and planned to support her with a hinged elbow brace locked at 90 degrees. A technician in the plaster room fitted Mrs A’s hinged elbow brace the same day.

9. On 6 November, Mrs A attended A&E with pain and swelling of her left hand. A junior doctor from the trauma and orthopaedic team reviewed her, discussed her with the orthopaedic registrar and made a plan for her to go home and return to the fracture clinic later that morning.

10. Later on 7 November, a physiotherapist reviewed Mrs A in the fracture clinic. They arranged for the hinged brace to be reapplied with a range from 45 to 90 degrees after getting advice from a consultant because they noted her elbow brace had slipped. They also arranged a review appointment with the consultant for two weeks later.

Findings

Checking the fitting of the hinged brace

14. Mrs A complains a consultant should have checked the fitting of her hinged brace on 4 November 2022 before she left the fracture clinic to go home.

15. Mrs A says a consultant took her down to the plaster room but they never checked the hinged brace and instead only the technician did this.

16. In the Trust’s complaint response it said it is always difficult to change from plaster support to a hinged brace when attempting early mobilisation (movement) when there has been a significant fracture. It explained that because of this, the ongoing discomfort Mrs A experienced was not due to an oversight by the doctor but was one of the possible outcomes of her injury. It apologised for the discomfort caused to her.

17. GMC guidance says:

‘15 You must provide a good standard of practice and care. If you assess, diagnose or treat patients, you must:

• adequately assess the patient’s conditions, taking account of their history (including the symptoms and psychological, spiritual, social and cultural factors), their views and values; where necessary, examine the patient • promptly provide or arrange suitable advice, investigations or treatment where necessary • refer a patient to another practitioner when this serves the patient’s needs.’

18. The records show Mrs A attended the outpatient clinic on 4 November 2022, where the registrar noted they removed her back slab and her bruising was settling down. They noted they had supported her with a hinged elbow brace locked at 90 degrees. The plaster room request form shows the plaster room technician got verbal consent for treatment, explained verbal instructions, fitted the elbow brace and noted the patient was comfortable.

19. We asked our adviser to help us understand who should have applied and checked Mrs A’s hinged brace.

20. Our adviser explained usually it would be a plaster technician who would apply the hinged brace in the plaster room, get verbal consent and give relevant instructions and this process was followed.

21. Our adviser said a hinged brace is not routinely checked by a doctor when there are no concerns from either the plaster technician or the patient. Based on the available records, it does not seem there were any concerns about the brace at the time.

22. Having considered the available evidence, we think the Trust acted in line with GMC guidance. The consultant (doctor) referred Mrs A to the plaster room technician and there is nothing to suggest this was not appropriate in her circumstances. We appreciate Mrs A’s view that a consultant should have checked her brace. Based on the evidence, we cannot say this was needed. As we have not seen any signs to suggest anything went wrong, we do not need to take any further action.

Delay removing the hinged brace

23. Mrs A complains the Trust should have removed her hinged brace and replaced this with a soft cast before she left A&E on 7 November 2022, rather than leaving her another five to six hours until her appointment at the fracture clinic at 10.30am that day.

24. In the Trust’s complaint response it said the doctor in A&E referred her to the orthopaedic team and the on call orthopaedic junior doctor reviewed her and discussed her case with the more senior on call orthopaedic doctor. They felt they could discharge her and follow up with her in the fracture clinic. The Trust said it appreciated Mrs A’s frustration about this, as she was worried about her case, but the orthopaedic team felt this was the most appropriate treatment plan for her.

25. It also said the on call orthopaedic doctor decided the most appropriate place to address her concerns with her cast fitting was the fracture clinic and this is why it discharged her and asked her to attend the fracture clinic later that morning. It explained the emergency department covers a wide range of treatments and conditions but if they can use the specialist services and improve outcomes for patients, they will usually refer to the specialist area.

26. The GMC guidance says:

‘14 You must recognise and work within the limits of your competence.’

‘16 In providing clinical care you must:

• prescribe drugs or treatment, including repeat prescriptions, only when you have adequate knowledge of the patient’s health and are satisfied that the drugs or treatment serve the patient’s needs • provide effective treatments based on the best available evidence • take all possible steps to alleviate pain and distress whether or not a cure may be possible • consult colleagues where appropriate’.

27. The records show Mrs A attended A&E on the evening of 6 November and the A&E team and orthopaedic team reviewed her. The notes say she reported pain and swelling of her left hand and she said her pain was managed with naproxen and paracetamol at first but this was no longer helping. A junior doctor from the trauma and orthopaedic team reviewed her at 3.30am (7 November) who noted swelling and mild tenderness. They discussed Mrs A with the orthopaedic registrar and planned for her to go home and return to the fracture clinic later that morning at 10.30am. The records note Mrs A was happy with this plan.

28. Mrs A then attended the fracture clinic later that morning and she had an X-ray which a consultant reviewed. They advised her elbow brace needed reapplying and the plaster room reapplied her brace for her.

29. Our adviser said Mrs A’s brace likely needed reapplying or adjusting but the junior doctor from the trauma and orthopaedic team was not able to do this themselves. Following advice from the orthopaedic registrar they arranged an appointment for Mrs A later that morning. This was approximately seven hours after her review in A&E by the trauma and orthopaedic team.

30. Our adviser said the decision about when to remove the brace is based on clinical judgement of Mrs A’s specific circumstances. They said if there were any delays in getting her an outpatient appointment, then it may have been appropriate to remove her brace in A&E. But, the notes do not suggest her pain was excessive because the junior doctor noted mild tenderness. So it seems it was appropriate to arrange the appointment to remove the brace for later that morning.

31. Having carefully considered the available evidence, we cannot say staff should have removed Mrs A’s hinged brace while she was in A&E. GMC guidance says doctors must recognise and work within the limits of their competence and consult colleagues where appropriate. The junior doctor from the trauma and orthopaedic team discussed Mrs A with a more senior colleague. They then planned for her to go home and return to the fracture clinic around seven hours later. We acknowledge Mrs A was in pain during this time and the wait must have been really difficult for her. She has also given us photographs to show how swollen her hand was at the time.

32. As the notes do not suggest Mrs A reported excessive pain, we cannot say the Trust should have taken further steps to remove her brace straight away. We also do not know whether the Trust would have had the staff available to do this immediately. Based on the evidence we have seen, we think the Trust acted in line with the GMC guidance.

33. As we have not seen that anything went seriously wrong with this part of the complaint, we do not need the Trust to take any further action.

Our Decision

1. We have carefully considered Mrs A’s complaint about Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust (the Trust). Having done this, we have seen no sign that anything went seriously wrong.

2. We are sorry to learn about the reasons for Mrs A’s complaint and the pain and swelling she experienced. We recognise this was a really difficult time for Mrs A.

Other Decisions About Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust

P-004873 · 23 Feb 2026
Mr A complains about the care his mother, received at the Trust between July and August 2022. He says she …
Not Upheld
P-004788 · 9 Feb 2026
Ms X complains about the care and treatment the Trust provided to her mother following her admission in September 2022.
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-004407 · 28 Nov 2025
Miss X complains about the care and treatment she received by the Trust. She says she was not given any …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-004134 · 28 Oct 2025
Mrs A complains about the Trust’s decision not to admit her mother to hospital, its prescribing decisions and its communication.
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-003653 · 30 Jun 2025
Mrs B complains about the care and treatment provided to her late niece, Miss F, on 15 and 16 February …
Upheld
View all decisions for this organisation →