SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained on behalf of their parent (A) about their care and treatment at University Hospital Ayr. A was admitted to hospital after an episode where they had become unresponsive. C raised concerns that medical staff decided to change A's epilepsy medication without getting specialist input. We took independent advice from a specialist in geriatric (medicine of the elderly) and general medicine. We found that A had not been properly assessed, that there was no clear reason for changing their epilepsy medication and that there was a lack of communication with their family about the change. We upheld C's complaint. We considered that the board had not appropriately responded to C's complaint, so we also made a complaints handling recommendation to address that.

C complained that their adult child (A)'s dyslexia was not taken into account when the board provided them with care and treatment, and that the care and treatment was not of a reasonable standard. C believed that if A's treatment had been better, then they would have had a better chance of surviving their cancer diagnosis. C felt that A's condition had been misdiagnosed because of A's age, as they were much younger than most people who suffered from this type of cancer. We took independent advice from an appropriately qualified adviser. We found that the board accepted that they had not been aware of A's dyslexia. We also found that there was no evidence that A lacked the capacity to make decisions about their care and treatment and that at the majority of their appointments, they had been accompanied by their other parent. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint. In terms of their care and treatment, we found that A had been difficult to diagnose because the options were limited for medical staff, due to A's unwillingness to agree to treatment. However, it would have been appropriate for A's case to have been discussed earlier at a multidisciplinary team meeting. This might have resulted in A's cancer being identified sooner. We upheld this aspect of C's complaint. However, this did not mean that the outcome for A would have been different, as the cancer was very aggressive, and it was unlikely that its progression could have been slowed or halted.

C complained that the practice had unfairly accused them of being threatening and aggressive, resulting in their removal from the practice list and that C had been unreasonably placed on an opiate reduction programme. C said that they had been targeted because they had successfully complained about the services provided by the practice in the past. C said that the practice had misrepresented the opiate reduction as mandatory, when in fact they were only required to review opiate use. C said that the practice had not taken into account the impact of the opiate reduction on them. The practice said that they had a zero tolerance for aggressive or inappropriate behaviour. C had abused the prescription request service and had entered the practice and refused to leave unless they were provided with an additional prescription. The practice had, after review, reinstated C to the practice, but C had continued to request medication early, breaching their agreements with the practice. This had resulted in their removal from the practice lists. The practice had reviewed and reduced C's medication in line with best practice and health board guidance. C had previously sought medication early and was considered by the practice to meet the criteria for opiate reduction. We took advice from an independent medical adviser. We found that the practice had acted reasonably in seeking to reduce C's opiate use. We also found that arguably the practice should have provided C with a written warning prior to the first decision to remove them from the practice list. When C had appealed against this decision, however, the practice had reviewed it and agreed to reinstate C subject to commitments about their behaviour. C's second removal had been due to the practice's view that the agreements reached with C had been breached. The practice were entitled to reach this decision and had acted reasonably. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 2

C complained about treatment provided by the board's community eating disorder service. They complained about the length of time it took the board to diagnose them and about the various referrals among clinicians involved in their care. C said that their mental health had deteriorated during the treatment period; their eating disorder was exacerbated and they had suicidal thoughts. We took independent advice from a consultant psychiatrist. We found that C presented with a number of mental health issues and had been managed at times by different teams within the mental health service. Although there was a period during which there was a lack of clarity regarding the overall management of C's care, generally we considered C's treatment to be reasonable and consistent with good practice. We found that the assessment of complex psychiatric presentations, where there is a history of multiple mental health issues, can be prolonged, with diagnosis and treatment modified or refined over time. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint. We did, however, provide feedback to the board on short-comings identified: failure to obtain permission for a student to attend an assessment, which caused C distress and anxiety, and poor communication in relation to treatment aims during the initial phase of treatment. C also complained about the board's handling of their complaint. When the board first responded to C's complaint they failed to address most of C's questions. C's MSP became involved and the board then responded in full around eight months after C complained. We were critical of the board's complaints handling, noting that the matters C complained about were of a serious and sensitive nature and the delays in responding added to their distress. Although much of the delay in preparing the response was outwith the complaints team's control, we found that they could have kept C more regularly updated. We upheld this aspect of C's complaint.

C complained about the care and treatment given by the board to their late parent (A). They made a formal complaint to the board to which the board replied two and a half months later. They were unhappy with the reply and wrote again. A had been admitted to Ayr Hospital where they were diagnosed with sepsis. They had previously had a heart valve replacement and were taking Warfarin (blood-thinning medication) on a long-term basis for which they required regular International Normalised Ratio checks (INR; checks used to monitor the effectiveness of the medication), especially when they were taking antibiotics. C believed that during A's admission they were not properly cared for, that inadequate tests and investigations were carried out and that their previous medical history was not taken into account. Staff showed no sense of urgency when A's condition deteriorated. C noted that A was allowed to deteriorate to the extent that they could not be treated and that they died as a result. The board's view was that on admission, all of A's symptoms and history were taken into account and that they were treated reasonably, promptly and appropriately throughout. We took independent advice from a consultant physician and cardiologist (specialises in dealing with disorders of the heart), who identified that A's INR levels were not checked in accordance with the board's standard Warfarin prescription, given that A had been prescribed new medication following the diagnosis of sepsis. When A's INR levels were subsequently checked again, they were found to be rapidly rising before being brought under control two days later. However, A's INR levels were again recorded as being too high within days, at which time A began to display symptoms of delirium. A scan of A's brain was arranged and that confirmed A had suffered a cerebral haemorrhage (bleeding from a ruptured blood vessel in the brain). A later died. Whilst it could not be said with certainty when the bleeding star

C complained about the treatment which their late partner (A) received when they attended A&E at University Hospital Ayr. C was concerned about A's colour as they had an alcohol problem, but A was discharged by a doctor who said that an in-patient stay was not required. C felt that A should have been admitted for further assessment or treatment. C took A to their doctor a few days later as A continued to show symptoms, and they said the GP was also concerned that A had not been admitted to hospital. A died ten days after the A&E attendance and C felt that had staff taken appropriate action then A would have been more comfortable in the final stages of their life. We took independent professional advice from a consultant in emergency medicine. We found that there were a number of failings identified at the A&E attendance which included a failure to establish the cause of A's bleeding and what their blood coagulation (clotting) status was. There were also failings in record-keeping and communication. Therefore, we upheld the complaint.

C complained about the care and treatment provided to their relative (A) during two hospital admissions with the board. C considered that the care that was given to A under the Adults with Incapacity (AWI) Act without consultation with C and their partner was unreasonable, given they were A's guardians. C also complained that the nursing and medical treatments provided to A were unreasonable. C raised concerns about A's arm during their admission and considered that these were not reasonably investigated or responded to. We took advice from appropriately qualified advisers. We found the board failed to keep reasonable records of the AWI. The board acknowledged that a key piece of paperwork was missing, which suggested that while the assessment had been undertaken, it could not be evidenced. We, therefore, upheld this complaint. We also found that the board failed to reasonably assess A's capacity. We noted that there were records of some discussion, however there was no evidence that the key paperwork for this was completed. We, therefore, upheld the complaint. We found that the board provided reasonable treatment to A during their admission. This particularly related to how a cannula (a thin tube inserted into a vein or body cavity to administer medication, drain off fluid, or insert a surgical instrument) was utilised. The adviser considered the use of this was reasonable. It was acknowledged that the cannula shifted, however, this was a known risk and it could not be determined what caused it. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint. We found that while there were a number of areas of nursing care which were reasonable, the board failed to provide reasonable nursing care, in particular in relation to the recording and management of A's pressure ulcers. We upheld this complaint. We found that the board provided a reasonable explanation to C regarding the deterioration of A's arm during their admission. While they could not definitively determine

C underwent planned laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgery (surgery to remove the gall bladder through several small cuts made in the abdomen) at University Hospital Crosshouse and was dissatisfied with the care and treatment they received. C stated that prior to discharge they felt unwell but asserted that their concerns and symptoms were dismissed, their request for review by a doctor was dismissed and they were forced out of recovery for discharge home. C experienced worsening symptoms thereafter and was readmitted to hospital ten days later. C underwent further care and treatment in the hospital setting. The board said that there were no complications during C's planned surgery or thereafter. C met discharge criteria, so it was appropriate that they were discharged. The board acknowledged that C was readmitted and underwent further treatment but said that the only potential explanation was that a recognised complication arose. We took independent advice from an appropriately qualified adviser. We found that the standard of C's planned surgery, performed by a registrar, was reasonable and supervised by the consultant. There was no evidence to suggest that the surgery was done without care nor that there were any problems. We noted that complications can occur despite a reasonable standard of surgery. During the immediate postoperative period, the management and provision for C's pain control appeared reasonable; C was regularly reviewed and given adequate pain control with satisfactory support from nursing staff. Despite this, C's symptoms should have prompted a review by a member of the clinical team. However, we noted that nurse-led discharge criteria give broad latitude to judgement on when to call the medical team and give inadequate guidance about when to seek support. On balance, we did not uphold this complaint. However, we provided feedback to the board with suggested improvements to their discharge criteria. Related reading View Decision Repor

C complained about the care and treatment provided to their late spouse (A). A had surgery to remove their gallbladder. A's recovery from surgery was difficult but they were deemed fit enough to be discharged. However, A had to be readmitted four days later after becoming unwell, and was discharged again two days later. A deteriorated at home and was readmitted two days later and was diagnosed as suffering from a significant bleed. A was taken to the operating theatre but died later that day. C complained to the board that A's symptoms indicated severe illness, that they were not fit enough to be discharged from hospital and that had treatment been provided sooner, they may have survived. The board explained to C the complications with the initial surgery, why they considered discharge was appropriate on each occasion and that the source of the bleed could only be identified during the post mortem. The board acknowledged that there had been delays in A being assessed and treated on their final admission. They apologised for the delays and explained they identified learning as a result. The board's view was that given that the type of bleed was very rare, earlier intervention was unlikely to have resulted in a different outcome for A. We took independent advice from an appropriately qualified clinical adviser. We found that whilst there was complications with the initial surgery, and A's recovery was difficult, the care and treatment provided, including the decisions to discharge A on both accounts, was reasonable. However, on A's final readmission, there was an unreasonable delay in assessing A, diagnosing that their symptoms were caused by a significant bleed and subsequently moving A to theatre for investigations. Whilst earlier treatment was unlikely to have altered the outcome for A, this delay was so serious that we upheld the complaint.

C complained about the care and treatment that their late parent (A) received. A had Muir-Torre Syndrome (individuals with this diagnosis are more likely to develop certain types of cancers). We took independent advice from a consultant colorectal surgeon (a surgeon who specialises in conditions in the colon, rectum or anus), a consultant dermatologist (a doctor specialising in the disease and treatment of the skin, hair and nails) and from a consultant haematologist (a doctor specialising in the disease and treatment of the blood and bone marrow). We found that A received appropriate monitoring and treatment in respect of their Muir-Torre Syndrome. We did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint. C also complained about the care and treatment that A received for arm pain. We took independent advice from an orthopaedic surgeon (a surgeon specialising in the treatment of diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system). We found that a clinic letter was typed two weeks after an urgent appointment and that the time between a scan being performed and potentially receiving the results was unreasonable because it fell outside of the 18 weeks referral-to-treatment standard. We upheld this aspect of C's complaint. Lastly, C complained about the care and treatment A received for cancer. We found that it was reasonable that no further investigations were arranged to try and identify the primary source of A's cancer, given that A was too unwell for treatment. It was reasonable that A did not receive chemotherapy in the circumstances, and the communication with A and A's family about the possibility of chemotherapy was also reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint. During the course of our investigation we identified aspects of the board's complaint handling which could have been better; in particular that C was not provided with a written record of the complaint meeting with the board, contrary to the NHS Scotland Complaints Handling Procedure.

C suffers from severe joint and musculoskeletal (relating to the muscles and skeleton) pain throughout their body. C complained that the board did not reasonably test C to establish the appropriate level of pain treatment they required. C wanted medication for pain to be administered by an intrathecal pump (a medical device used to deliver very small quantities of medications to the spinal fluid) and by trigger-point injections (a procedure used to treat painful areas of muscle that contain trigger points, or knots of muscle that form when muscles do not relax). The board did not consider this to be appropriate. We considered that the board was aware of the level of pain experienced by C and that the pain management had been reasonable. We found that an intrathecal pump is usually used to target pain in a specific area for cancer patients or in palliative care, rather than where pain is benign (not directly linked to another medical condition) and widespread. We found that an implant can cause infection and that this increases over time and therefore the risk of use is lower for those in receipt of palliative care. We also found that if pain is not responsive to opioids (a type of pain relief) then delivery of opioids by this method is not likely to be effective. We also found that trigger point injections offer short-term relief and their effectiveness reduces when repeated. We therefore agreed with the board that these treatments were not appropriate for C. We did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201902748 as a PDF (24.46 KB) Updated: January 20, 2021

C complained about the care and treatment their late spouse (A) received from the practice. C had arranged a same-day appointment at the practice as A had been sick over the weekend. When the time approached; A was too ill to attend, therefore, C called the practice to request a house visit. A triage phone call took place that morning. A's symptoms were noted, advice provided and medication prescribed for sickness and diarrhoea. The following day, C requested a house visit as they felt that A's condition had worsened. Arrangements were made for a house visit to take place. C was concerned that A's condition was further deteriorating, so they contacted the practice to check when the doctor would arrive. The practice subsequently arranged for an emergency ambulance. A was taken to hospital but died shortly thereafter. The primary cause of death was found to be diabetic ketoacidosis (a complication of diabetes mellitus) and respiratory tract infection. In responding to the complaint, the practice said that they could not always judge the severity of the symptoms over the phone; however, from the symptoms provided to the doctor, the appropriate action was taken in A's case. C remained dissatisfied with the care and treatment A had received and raised the matter with us. C was also unhappy that the practice's response to the complaint did not adequately cover all of their concerns. We took independent advice from a GP. We found that, at the time of the triage phone call, there was an unreasonable failure to take an adequate history and further assess A (by way of an examination either by a house visit or hospital admission). We, therefore, upheld this aspect of the complaint. During our investigation, the practice provided us with some evidence of reflection and learning that had taken place. In terms of C's concerns about the practice's response to their complaint, we found that they had appropriately contacted C in a timely manner in an attempt to obtain

C complained about the care and treatment their ex-partner (A) received from the board during a hospital admission. A was taken to hospital after self-harming. They had also written a suicide note, which was taken to hospital with them. After being assessed by psychiatric clinicians, it was decided that A did not require hospital admission for psychiatric observation or detoxification. It was also concluded that A showed no evidence of a specific plan or intent to carry out suicide and did not present with a mental illness. A was discharged that day but completed suicide the following day. C complained to us about the general care and treatment provided to A and the fact that they were discharged home. In addition to this, C complained that they were not informed that A had been admitted to and discharged from hospital, given that they were still A’s next of kin. We took advice on this complaint from an appropriately qualified adviser with a background as a consultant psychiatrist. We found that staff carried out an appropriately detailed assessment of A and made decisions that were in line with relevant guidance, based on the information available to them at the time. The board had previously acknowledged that the suicide note had not been reviewed by the clinicians who attended A and we agreed that this was a shortcoming. However, despite the outcome, we were satisfied that the board had provided a reasonable and appropriate level of care and treatment to A overall. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. In respect of whether C should have been notified of A’s admission and discharge, we concluded that the board’s actions were reasonable. Although C was listed as A’s next of kin, A was living with their father at the time. It was reasonable for the hospital to conclude that A’s father was the most appropriate point of contact at that time. Therefore, it was reasonable for the hospital to discuss matters with A’s father rather than

C complained about the care and treatment the board provided to their late spouse (A) at University Hospital Crosshouse (UHC). A suffered a heart attack and was taken by ambulance to a hospital in another health board area. Following treatment, A was transferred to UHC, but then suffered what was thought to be a stroke event and died a week later. C complained about several aspects of A's care, including that staff did not tell them what was happening with A and failed to advise them that A was in a coma. C also said that A's health had improved at the other hospital and they understood that A was being moved to UHC to recuperate before being sent home, but A died shortly after their arrival at UHC. We took independent advice on the case from two advisers - a consultant cardiologist (a doctor that specialises in diseases and abnormalities of the heart) and from a nurse. We found that the medical records showed staff gave C regular updates about A's condition and tried to be realistic about the likely outcome, while being supportive of C. We considered that there was evidence that staff kept C reasonably updated about A's condition during the admission. However, we welcomed the board's apology that the communication did not meet C's needs; this showed a sensitivity to the responsibility for ongoing learning and improvement to ensure communication is tailored to the needs of individuals and their families. We found that there was a lack of clarity from the other hospital about A's prognosis and future treatment plan at the time of their transfer to UHC, which may have contributed to C's confusion and distress at this time. We included some feedback to the board about this. However, we noted that this did not influence A's care at UHC, following the sudden stroke that they suffered soon after transfer, which was ultimately fatal. We considered that, overall, A's care and treatment at UHC was reasonable and we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View

C complained about the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) care and treatment provided to their child (A). A had an assessment with CAMHS, and following this, the board felt that further CAMHS input was not necessary as they considered the information suggested attachment related difficulties as opposed to a neuro-developmental disorder. C complained that the board had not carried out an in-depth assessment or obtained relevant information from A's school. We took independent advice from a CAMHS mental health nurse. We found that the assessment of A carried out by CAMHS was reasonable and gathered the appropriate information in order to make a decision that no further input or support from CAMHS was required. We did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint. C also complained that following A's appointment, the board's communication was unreasonable as they were not told of follow-up appointments in a timely manner and had not fully discussed A's case with C. We found that in all but one case, appointment letters were sent to C in a timely manner. However, we found that the board had failed to explain to C that the school assessments were no longer required and the reasons for this. On this basis, we upheld this aspect of C's complaint. We also identified that the board had failed to follow up on an action agreed in their complaint response and made a recommendation in relation to this.

Mr C complained on behalf of his mother-in-law (Ms B) about the care and treatment Ms B's late husband (Mr A) received during his admission to University Hospital Ayr with suspected renal colic (a type of pain experienced when urinary stones block part of the urinary tract). After Mr A collapsed in the hospital he was assessed by a consultant vascular surgeon (a specialist in the treatment of diseases affecting the vascular system including diseases of the arteries, veins and lymphatic vessels) who suspected a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (a bulge or swelling in the main blood vessel from the heart that has burst). This was confirmed on an urgent CT scan. Mr A was taken to theatre where he died. Mr C told us that he considered the care and treatment Mr A received was unreasonable because the aneurysm was misdiagnosed for the vast majority of Mr A’s time in the hospital; that no urine test was ever performed and as a result nitrites (nitrites can be a sign of infection) in Mr A’s urine could not have pointed towards the diagnosis of renal colic; no effort was made to investigate or test for an aneurysm prior to Mr A’s collapse; no ultrasound or CT scan was performed prior to Mr A’s collapse; and there was delay in starting the operation once the suspected ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm was identified. We took independent advice from a consultant vascular and general surgeon. We found that aspects of Mr A’s care and treatment were reasonable. In particular, that the initial diagnosis of renal colic was reasonable. We noted that once the diagnosis of an aneurysm was made there was no delay in getting Mr A to theatre. However, we found that there was an unreasonable delay in carrying out a CT scan which would have identified the presence of an aneurysm. As such, there was an unreasonable delay in making the diagnosis of a ruptured aneurysm. The board have accepted that the diagnosis should have been considered earlier than it was and have taken action

C complained to us that the board had unreasonably given their child (A) an overdose of morphine. We took independent advice from a consultant paediatrician (a doctor who specialises in child medicine). We found that A had received an overdose of morphine as a result of a doctor failing to discard excess morphine from a syringe and giving them the full syringe. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. C also complained that the board then failed to carry out observations on A appropriately after the error was identified. We found that staff had recognised the need for close observation, but the observations were not clearly documented in A's clinical records and we were unable to say definitively whether or not the observations were carried out appropriately. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of the complaint. Finally, C complained that the board had failed to provide a reasonable response to their complaint. We found that there had been an unreasonable delay in responding to the complaint. Also, there was no evidence that the board had kept C updated during this time. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. We noted that the board had already apologised for these failings but we made further recommendations for learning and improvement.

Miss C attended the Maternity Assessment Unit (MAU) at Crosshouse Hospital after suffering a bleed at home. Miss C had had a caesarean section at the same hospital a few weeks earlier. Miss C was reviewed by staff and an ultrasound scan was taken. Staff concluded the bleeding was likely related to Miss C's period starting and she was discharged home. Miss C was readmitted to the same hospital days later after she collapsed at home and was transferred to the Maternity High Dependency Unit where a further scan revealed a blood clot in the uterus. Miss C complained that she had received poor care at the MAU and that it was wrong to send her home only to be readmitted at a later date. We took independent advice from a consultant. We found that staff performed appropriate investigations when Miss C attended the MAU, that it appeared her symptoms were improving and that there was no clinical reason for a hospital admission at that time. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201908521 as a PDF (24.2 KB) Updated: July 22, 2020

Mrs C, an advocate, made a complaint on behalf of her client (Ms B). Mrs C complained about the care and treatment provided to Ms B's late partner (Mr A). Mr A had attended Ayr University Hospital after rupturing his patella tendon. He underwent surgical repair of his ruptured patella tendon and was discharged home the following day. Over the next few weeks, there was delay and a lack of clarity over how Mr A was to access follow-up care and treatment. His GP informed him that they had not received a copy of the discharge letter in the post and Mr A did not know who was to arrange a follow-up appointment at his local orthopaedic (specialism in the treatment of disease and injury of the musculoskeletal system) department, which was located in a different NHS Board area from the hospital where he received surgery. These matters were resolved after discussion with the orthopaedic consultant who treated Mr A. However, Mr A suddenly became very unwell some days after his surgery and died following a cardiac arrest. The cause of Mr A's death was later recorded as a pulmonary embolism (a condition when a blood clot breaks off and ends up blocking a blood vessel in a person's lungs), resulting from deep vein thrombosis (a condition that happens when a blood clot forms in a deep vein, usually in the leg) in his calf. Mrs C complained that Mr A had not been prescribed with chemical thromboprophylaxis (drugs to prevent thrombosis) on discharge and that his discharge was not handled reasonably or appropriately. In particular, she complained that he was discharged without an appropriate post-operative medical review, and that there was a delay in the hospital issuing the discharge letter and arranging an appointment with Mr A's local orthopaedic department. The board acknowledged that there was a failure to follow the instructions of the orthopaedic consultant who had operated on Mr A and outlined what steps they intended to take to prevent this happening again. However

Mr C complained that his pain medication had been stopped and said that he suffered significant pain as a result. We took independent advice from a GP. We found that the decision to stop Mr C's pain medication was reasonable and he was reasonably followed up with, and offered appropriate alternatives, for his pain. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201808272 as a PDF (23.85 KB) Updated: June 17, 2020

Mrs C attended hospital for a coronary angiogram (a test to find out if a person has any problems with the blood vessels that supply the heart muscle with oxygen and how well the pumping chambers and valves in the heart are working). Following the procedure, Mrs C was left feeling pain in her right leg and described her right foot as feeling frozen. A procedure was carried out to try and alleviate Mrs C's symptoms but she felt no improvement. Mrs C complained that the angiogram was not carried out to an appropriate standard. In responding to Mrs C's complaint, the board apologised but explained that she appeared to have suffered known complications of the procedure. We took independent advice from a consultant cardiologist (a specialist that deals with diseases and abnormalities of the heart). We found that Mrs C's procedure was carried out to an appropriate standard. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201809565 as a PDF (24.19 KB) Updated: June 17, 2020

Ms C, an advocacy worker, complained on behalf of her client (Mr A) about the treatment he received following a cataract operation (a surgical procedure to replace the eye lens with an artificial one). During the surgery a complication occurred whereby the lens unfolded in an unusual fashion. Mr A underwent a number of other procedures and is concerned that these may have been unnecessary had his concerns about his eyes been listened to. The board accepted that a complication occurred during the cataract surgery, however, they consider it was managed appropriately. The board consider Mr A was kept informed of his clinical condition as it evolved. We took independent advice from a consultant ophthalmologist (a clinician who treats disorders and diseases of the eye). We found that Mr A suffered a recognised complication during the cataract surgery and there is no evidence to suggest that his post-operative symptoms were not managed appropriately. However, we did consider that there was an unreasonable delay in performing the second surgery to repair the complication. Therefore, we upheld Ms C's complaint.

Mr C complained about a dentist's failed attempts to restore his broken tooth with a white composite filling. The filling fell out a week later and was replaced but unfortunately it failed again and fell out two days later. The option of fitting a crown was discussed but Mr C did not consider that he should have to contribute to the cost of this. He subsequently changed dentist and requested that the cost of subsequent treatment under the new dentist was reimbursed. We took independent advice from a dentist. We found that the treatment provided in attempting to restore Mr C's broken tooth was reasonable and in line with standard clinical practice. The dentist had no obligation to contribute to the cost of any treatment Mr C received from his new dentist. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint. Mr C also complained about concurrent root canal treatment he was undergoing on a different tooth. This was carried out over several visits and, at the second visit, the dentist temporarily restored the tooth and booked Mr C a further appointment. However, Mr C reported that the tooth broke around four hours later when he was eating soft food. We found that the treatment provided was reasonable and in line with normal clinical practice. There was no evidence to support Mr C's concerns that failings in his treatment contributed to the tooth breaking a few hours later, and did not consider that the quality of this treatment should be associated with the subsequent extraction of the tooth by the new dentist. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201803462 as a PDF (24.44 KB) Updated: March 18, 2020

Ms C complained to us about the care and treatment she received at University Hospital Ayr. Ms C underwent total hip replacement surgery (a surgical procedure where a damaged hip joint is replaced with an artificial one) on both hips. Ms C raised concerns that the risks of each surgery were not communicated appropriately to her; there were failings in carrying them out, which caused her to experience pain and mobility issues; and her post-surgical care was unreasonable. We took independent advice from a medical adviser who is a consultant orthopaedic and trauma surgeon (a specialist in the treatment of diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system). For both surgeries, we found no evidence of failings in carrying them out. We found that Ms C experienced recognised complications of total hip replacement surgery. We also found that Ms C's post-surgical care was reasonable. However, we found that there was no evidence Ms C was appropriately informed of the risks involved in each surgery during the consent process. Therefore, we upheld Ms C's complaints.

Mr C complained about the care and treatment he received from Ayr Hospital in relation to surgery he underwent for penile deviation (curvature of the penis). Mr C was dissatisfied with aspects of the medical and nursing care. Following surgery, he developed a haematoma and infection. In addition, the end result of the surgery was unsatisfactory for him. We took independent advice from a consultant urological surgeon (a doctor who specialises in the male and female urinary tract, and the male reproductive organs) and a registered nurse. We found no evidence that the surgery was of an unreasonable standard. However, we found that informed consent for the surgery undertaken was not properly obtained from Mr C, in line with the General Medical Council's (GMC) guidance on consent. We considered that the medical care Mr C received was unreasonable and upheld this aspect of his complaint. In terms of the nursing care, we identified failings in that there was a lack of record-keeping to show that Mr C's wound was regularly checked and assessed with the appropriate dressings applied. In addition, in terms of his discharge from hospital, there was no evidence to show that Mr C was given information about caring for his wound at home or that he was supplied with sufficient dressings. We considered that these aspects were unreasonable and upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.