SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained to the board about various aspects of the board’s care and treatment of their partner (A) and their communication with C and A during an inpatient admission covering the end of A’s pregnancy and the birth of their child (B) by caesarean section. The board accepted that a number of areas of communication had not been reasonable and apologised for this. The board explained what action would be taken to address these areas for improvement. The board also accepted that in a few specific cases, A had not received reasonable care but indicated that they considered A’s care and treatment had been reasonable overall. In response to a specific complaint from C, the board stated that A had not had sepsis (blood infection) or been treated for it during their admission. A few months later, however, the board wrote to C and stated that their labour had been complicated by sepsis. We took independent advice from an appropriately qualified midwife. We found that, overall, A and B received good care and appropriate standards of treatment that were in line with relevant professional standards. Given this, and that reasonable actions to minimise recurrence were taken in relation to areas where the board had accepted care was not of an acceptable standard, and where communication could have been improved, we did not uphold the complaint that the board had not provided reasonable care and treatment to A. We found that A had had sepsis during their admission and receive prompt and appropriate care. However, we considered that the board’s repeated altering of their position on whether A had sepsis, both minimised A’s experience and, potentially risked inadequate care and treatment responses being provided to patients with suspected sepsis in the future. We upheld the complaint that the board’s response inaccurately stated that A did not have sepsis and was not treated for sepsis during their admission.

C was concerned about a number of issues regarding their care and treatment, and that of their child (A), during their pregnancy, A’s birth and afterwards. C raised complaints with the board and were dissatisfied by their response. The board’s response accepted that there had been issues with aspects of the boards complaint handling and a number of issues with their communication, but did not indicate that the board considered that there had been any issues with C or A’s care or treatment. We took independent advice from qualified advisers with experience of obstetrics, neonatology and midwifery (the medical specialisms for pregnancy, childbirth etc.). We found that, overall, C and A had received reasonable care and treatment from the board and that, where areas for improvement around communication had been identified, reasonable actions had been taken to address these. We did not uphold these part's of C's complaint. We noted that the board had accepted that C had been assigned to an incorrect consultant’s waiting list for a post-birth debrief and upheld this complaint. We also noted that the board had appropriately apologised to C for this. However, we considered that the board should have taken steps to minimise the possibility of a similar situation recurring in the future. In considering the board’s response to C’s complaints, we found that there were specific areas where the board’s response and actions could have been improved. However, taking into account those areas for improvement in complaints handling the board had identified, the apologies provided to C and the specific circumstances of the time C raised their complaints, overall the board responded reasonably to C’s complaint. We did not uphold this part of C's complaint.

C, a support and advocacy worker, complained on behalf of their client (A) about the care and treatment that A received from the board in relation to a planned gynaecology (relating to the female reproductive system) surgical procedure. Following a discussion with the operating consultant on the day of the surgery, A said that the planned procedure was changed from a keyhole subtotal hysterectomy (removing the main body of the womb and leaving the cervix in place) to a keyhole total hysterectomy (removing the womb and the cervix). A said that they felt they had been put under pressure to accept the operation, and did not understand the consequences of losing their ovaries. A’s surgery was carried out at a private sector hospital by the board’s surgical team due to the board experiencing issues with theatre capacity at that time. During the operation, a complication occurred which caused A to bleed and the procedure was converted to an open procedure to manage the bleeding. Having complained about the matter, the board explained to A that an issue with equipment during the surgery meant that the correct equipment had not been available during the procedure. A complained to the board on two further occasions in order to gain more understanding about the complication and the issue with the equipment which had occurred during the operation. A felt that the board’s responses were contradictory and asked C to complain to this office on their behalf. We took independent advice from a consultant gynaecologist. We found that there were failings in relation to the process of consent at both the pre-operative clinic and on the day of surgery. We also found failings in relation to the documentation of the operation, including the complication and the way this had been managed during the procedure, and in the equipment log of the surgical instruments used during the procedure. To manage the bleeding, we found that the choice of equipment used had been unreasonable, noting it was

C complained about the care and treatment provided to their parent (A) on two separate admissions to hospital. A was detained on both occasions under the Mental Health (Care and treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003. C had concerns about A being sedated and that staff had restrained A in an inappropriate manner. In their response to the complaint, the board explained the care provided to A, the reasons for the administration of medication, how this was overseen and adjusted to address A’s levels of sedation, and the process and performance of restraints when they were required. C was dissatisfied with the board’s response and brought their complaint to us. We took independent advice from a consultant psychiatrist and a mental health nurse. We found that on both admissions, there was appropriate oversight of A’s medication and care was taken to consider sedative effects and find a balanced approach. We found that medications were administered appropriately to manage A’s distress and aggression. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C’s complaint. In relation to the use of restraints, we found that these had been performed reasonably and that A’s concerns about pain to their ribs was appropriately assessed. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C’s complaint. However, we did provide the board with some feedback on the requirements for accurate record keeping. Related reading View Decision Report 202204112 as a PDF (24.47 KB) Updated: May 22, 2024

C complained about the care and treatment provided to their late spouse (A) who had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, a group of lung conditions that cause breathing difficulties). A was admitted to hospital as an emergency with kidney failure, and high blood acid and potassium levels. A died the following day. The cause of death appeared to be a cardiac arrest resulting from high potassium, in the context of coronary artery disease. C complained that A should not have been stepped down from the critical care unit to a medical ward resulting in a lack of monitoring and timely treatment for A and that A had inappropriately been deemed DNACPR (do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation). C also said that the board’s review into A’s death failed to identify or acknowledge clinically significant evidence and that communication and provision for bereaved families was poor. We took independent advice from a consultant in acute and general medicine. We found that while it was reasonable for the board to have considered moving A to a general medical ward, an arterial blood gas test conducted prior to the transfer had indicated that A’s condition was deteriorating. This test was not acted upon. We were also critical that the board had missed the significance of these test results during their complaints investigation. Furthermore, while the process for declaring a DNACPR was reasonable, we found that the way in which this had been explained to C had been lacking. We also noted that while the board had confirmed that facilities for bereaved families were available, they were not utilised for A’s relatives on this occasion. Therefore, we upheld all of C’s complaints.

C complained about the ear, nose and throat surgery (ENT) that they received from the board. C was referred for surgery for biopsy of a nasal ulcer that would not heal, and for treatment of a nasal drip. C complained that the biopsy had not been taken as expected, which they were not aware of until making a complaint. C also complained that they had been left worse off due to a perforation being caused during the procedure. This has caused them to have an audible whistling sound when they breathe. C said that, while the risk of perforation had been mentioned at the outpatient appointment, they were led to believe it was not something they had to worry about. Furthermore, they were not told that if it happened, it wouldn’t heal naturally, and surgery to fix it often fails. The board explained that the biopsy had not been taken as the ulcer had healed by the time C attended for surgery. The board apologised for the perforation. They noted that the surgeon was not aware of one occurring before in their career but had since changed their practice to ensure it was discussed when obtaining consent. We took independent advice from an ENT adviser. We found that C had not been reasonably consented for surgery at the outpatient clinic or on the day of surgery. We noted that the documentation did not support the reported discussions which took place about the surgery or the associated risks, or the implications should C have decided not to proceed with the procedure. We also found that the written information provided to C was unreasonable. The patient information leaflet did not provide information about the short and/or long-term implications of a perforation or that it may occur after the surgery has taken place. It did not note that it was unlikely to heal on its own, that surgery to correct it may not be an option or, if attempted, successful. We considered that C had received reasonable post-operative care and follow-up from the board. It was reasonable to plan to see th

C complained that the board failed to provide their spouse (A) with reasonable care and treatment during an in-patient admission to hospital for a fractured hip. C who is A’s Power of Attorney also complained that the board failed to communicate adequately with them and A’s family. We took independent advice from an orthopaedic surgeon (specialist in the treatment of diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system) and a registered nurse. We found that the board had failed to provide A with adequate care and treatment, particularly in relation to pressure care management. We found that the board had failed to maintain a reasonable standard of care records. We also found that the board failed to communicate adequately with C and A’s family. Therefore, we upheld C’s complaints. Additionally we found that the board failed to adequately investigate C’s complaint and made a recommendation to address this. In response to our enquiries during our investigation, the board sent us a detailed list of actions that they have taken to address and learn from the failings we identified. We considered that these were reasonable, but that further learning could be identified.

C complained that the medical practice failed to provide their late parent (A) with reasonable care and treatment after A fell and hit their head. A had sustained a subdural haematoma (where blood collects between the skull and the brain). A was cared for in their home and later admitted to hospital. A died a few months after their fall. We took independent advice on this complaint from a GP. We found that the head injury assessment was unreasonable and not in line with NICE guidance. We were critical that the practice did not acknowledge this failing in their complaint response, the significant adverse event review (SAER) or in response to our enquiries. We found that it was unreasonable that concerns raised by C, after A’s fall, did not prompt further action by the practice. We also noted that the clinical notes did not adequately describe the head injury and there was no evidence that the practice understood the significance of the head injury and communicated that to the medical service they referred A onto. Therefore, we upheld this part of C’s complaint. C also complained that the practice unreasonably failed to carry out a SAER in line with the relevant Healthcare Improvement Scotland Guidance. We found that the initial SAER was of poor quality. The enhanced SAER was in line with the guidance, but we were again critical of the quality. Therefore, we upheld this part of C’s complaint. We also found that the practice’s complaint handling did not mirror the current Model Complaints Handling Procedure. Therefore, we made a recommendation to address this.

C, a support and advocacy worker, complained on behalf of their client (A) who suffered from thyroid eye disease (an autoimmune disease in which the eye muscles and fatty tissue behind the eye become inflamed). A complained that the treatment provided by the board had been ineffective and requested a second opinion and a review of the treatment that they had received to date. We took independent initial advice from a consultant ophthalmologist (a specialist in the study and treatment of disorders and diseases of the eye). We found that while the board had obtained a second opinion on A’s condition and plan of care moving forward, they had promised to review A’s past care and treatment which had not been done. The board have now confirmed that a consultant has been found to review the relevant treatment and this has been agreed by all parties as a resolution to this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 202109730 as a PDF (24.21 KB) Updated: April 17, 2024

C complained that the board failed to provide reasonable care and treatment to their sibling (A) after they were admitted to hospital. A had a cardiorespiratory arrest (the cessation of effective ventilation and circulation) in the hospital and suffered a brain injury as a result of this. We took independent advice from a consultant in critical care. We found that the board had provided reasonable care and treatment to A and we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. C also complained that the adverse event review that the board subsequently carried out was unreasonable. In relation to this complaint, we found that the board had carried out a level 2 review when a level 1 review should have been carried out. The level 2 review had also been allocated to an inexperienced review team, it reviewed only part of A’s care journey, and it was short and poorly detailed. We also found that the record-keeping on the ward immediately before and after A’s cardiorespiratory arrest was limited and not of the standard expected. Detailed retrospective entries should have been completed shortly after these events occurred, by both medical and nursing staff. We therefore upheld this aspect of the complaint. We also found that the board’s complaint handling of C’s complaint was unreasonable.

C complained about the nursing care that their parent (A) received. A had dementia and was admitted following a fall in their care home, remaining in hospital until their death some weeks later. C complained that during A’s admission, A was not treated with dignity, that they were left without food or water, and that they were allowed to aspirate on pureed food because they were not safely positioned in bed. The board maintained that overall the nursing care was of a reasonable standard, but they accepted that documentation had been poor. They provided us with a detailed action plan which they were implementing in response to the failings that they had identified. We took independent nursing advice. We found gaps in record-keeping in relation to food and fluid intake. We found that the board had failed to evidence that A was cared for in a dignified and respectful manner. Comfort rounding was not provided as frequently as it should have been, taking into account A’s frailty and general condition. A had pressure ulcers and we found that the board had failed to demonstrate sufficiently frequent skin checks and repositioning. The board also failed to maintain wound charts, recording wound sizes and grade. There was no evidence of oral care having been provided. We did not find evidence to support the account that A was left to choke on pureed food on the day before they died. The records indicated that A was being checked on regularly that morning, and that A was asleep much of the time and noted to be ‘too drowsy for oral intake’. A was being treated for secretions, which we considered may have accounted for the gurgling sound reported. Although it was not possible to establish precisely what had happened on this date, it was regrettable that this incident caused so much distress to the family, and we noted that the board had apologised for the distress caused. Taking all of the above into account, we upheld the complaint. We found that the board’s action

C complained about the care and treatment that they received from the practice prior to receiving a diagnosis of a cancerous brain tumour, for which C underwent surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy. C had eight consultations at the practice over the course of ten months prior to receiving a referral to the neurology department. We took independent advice from a GP. We found that there was a missed opportunity for the practice to review C in person and consider an earlier neurological referral on the basis of C’s worsening symptoms. We upheld the complaint. During the course of the investigation, the practice acknowledged these failings and took action to address them.

C complained about the care and treatment that their late parent (A) received from the board. A was admitted to hospital after a fall at home. A’s condition declined whilst in hospital. C complained that during A’s admission there were clinical errors, inappropriate treatment and insufficient diagnosis work. In C’s view, this contributed to and hastened A’s death. C stated that clinicians had fixated on alcohol as the primary cause of A’s condition. A post-mortem later confirmed this not to be the case and that A had Lewy Body dementia (a brain disorder that can lead to problems with thinking, movement, behaviour, and mood) or similar when they died. C also asserted that A’s two brain bleeds sustained in the fall were not adequately monitored or treated. C highlighted concerns that there was no intervention and no repeat computed tomography (CT) scan carried out to check the condition/size of the two brain bleeds. This was despite a decline in A’s neurological condition. In addition to this, C complained that the board’s communication with A’s family fell below a reasonable standard. C stated that, in their view, A’s two brain bleeds were more significant than clinicians had led the family to believe at the time of admission. They also highlighted an unwitnessed fall on the ward that was not reported to the family. We took independent advice from a neurologist adviser. We found that the treatment provided by the board was reasonable. Given A’s circumstances and presentation, we did not consider the focus on alcohol-related cognitive failure to be unreasonable or that it materially affected the treatment provided. We also found that the decision not to carry out an additional CT scan to be reasonable. However, we highlighted concerns about some of the board’s justification for not carrying out an additional CT scan. We also received a limited amount of advice from an independent nursing adviser about some additional concerns raised by C. We found tha

C complained about the care and treatment provided to their late child (A) by the medical practice. C was concerned that A had been misdiagnosed by their GP during a telephone appointment. During the appointment, A reported shortness of breath, experiencing breathlessness, and feeling faint when walking upstairs and putting on their shoes. A was diagnosed with anxiety and prescribed a beta blocker (drug that blocks the action of hormones like adrenaline). Later that week, A died suddenly due to pulmonary embolism (a blood clot that blocks and stops blood flow to an artery in the lung). C raised concerns that there was a delay in A receiving treatment, the treatment that A received was inappropriate, and that harm was caused as a result of A being given the wrong treatment. We took independent advice from a GP adviser and subsequently from another GP adviser with a specialism in sexual and reproductive health. We found that there are numerous risk factors for pulmonary embolus and, in this case, the main risk factors were BMI, family medical history and prescription of combined oral contraceptive. Neither risk alone would preclude prescribing combined oral contraceptive, but consideration would be made for two risks, as in this case. We found that the health centre failed to provide A with reasonable medical care and treatment. We upheld C’s complaint.

C complained that the partnership had not provided the correct care and treatment for their ear infection in their right ear. C did not consider that the ongoing ear infection had been correctly diagnosed or treated, noting that the antibiotics which were prescribed had not been effective. C was concerned that although a referral to ENT had been made, the referral was not correctly prioritised, which had caused a significant delay. It was only when C saw a doctor, who phoned ENT, did C receive specialist input. We took independent advice from a GP adviser. We found that C had not been seen face to face for a six month period, the first was a routine referral and the second expedited referral did not reflect the clinical situation because C had not been examined. We also found that the overuse of antibiotics had likely aggravated the situation. Overall we considered that more could have been done to clinically assess and seek specialist input for C’s ear infection. We therefore upheld the complaint.

C complained that when they developed complications in their pregnancy, the care that they received fell below a reasonable standard. C was six weeks pregnant and considered a high-risk pregnancy due to four previous caesarean section procedures, as well as surgery to reverse a previous sterilisation. C said that they were treated with a lack of empathy and courtesy by staff during scanning. C also complained that they were refused admission despite being known to be a high-risk pregnancy and despite developing vaginal bleeding. When C was admitted they believed that their surgery was unreasonably delayed, resulting in an avoidable rupture to their fallopian tube. We took independent advice from both a registered nurse and a consultant obstetrician (the branch of medicine and surgery concerned with childbirth and midwifery). We found a number of failings on the part of the board. However, the board submitted new information, which included sections of C’s medical records which had not been provided previously. The board acknowledged that this was a failing on their part. We reviewed this information and determined that some of the original questions over the actions of the board were answered by this information. We upheld the complaint that the board failed to provide a reasonable standard of care during C's admission. In relation to C's complaint about being unreasonably refused admission, we found that C was treated reasonably and that the board demonstrated that their procedures were followed by staff. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

C complained on behalf of their spouse (A) about the board not issuing a discharge plan at the point A was discharged from hospital for palliative care before A passed away. As their carer, C wanted to know how to provide care and support for A. C said that this plan was subsequently requested a number of times but not provided. C also complained that following A’s death, their GP provided a copy of the Inpatient Discharge Summary which said ‘Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation’ (DNACPR). C said that they had not been aware a decision had been made on this and as A’s Power of Attorney, and in order to safeguard A, DNACPR should not have been discussed with A without C being present. We took independent advice from a registered consultant geriatrician (a doctor specialising in medical care for the elderly). We found that the board could not have provided C with a discharge plan as C did not attend hospital that day. We also found that A was not given clear discharge information despite this being complex and their care needs being high. There was also a failure to subsequently provide C with a copy of the discharge plan when requested, and record keeping failures during A’s discharge. We also found that the board failed to communicate with C that a DNACPR decision had been made with A. We upheld the complaint.

C complained about the care and treatment provided to their late parent (A) by the board. A was under the care of another board and investigations undertaken were suggestive of cancer in the bile drainage system, which was initially thought to be operable. A was referred to the board and admitted to hospital for a percutaneous transhepatic biliary drain (a procedure to drain bile to relieve pressure in the bile ducts caused by a blockage) and biliary biopsies. This was carried out and the three biopsies taken were sent back to the ward with A. The duty consultant and the clinical nurse specialist met with A and relayed the findings of the multi-disciplinary team discussion the previous day. The specialist radiologists felt that there was a thickening of the lining of the abdomen that may suggest the disease had spread and that the nature of the tumour was unresectable. A check tubogram (a dye test to check whether the stent had opened up) indicated that the stent inserted had not fully drained the bile ducts and a second stent was inserted, with the external component of the biliary drain removed. A was discharged shortly afterwards. At a multi-disciplinary team discussion less than two weeks later, it was highlighted that there were no biopsies currently in the pathology laboratory. Further investigation found that A’s biopsies had been disposed of. Four months on, A was made aware by the referring board that the biopsies had not reached the laboratory. A died after a short period. We took independent advice from a general and colorectal surgeon. We found that whilst A had been given sufficient information regarding their care and treatment and the need for a biopsy, the board unreasonably lost biopsy samples and failed to inform A that they had been lost. We also found that the communication between departments, wards and with another board was unreasonable. We upheld the complaint.

C complained on behalf of their parent (A) who was suffering from dementia. A had been found in a neglected state by C’s sibling. A had vomited and it appeared that A had been left unattended overnight with no personal care. A’s incontinence pad had not been changed for what appeared to have been a significant period and was soaked in urine. C believed this failure in care led to A’s resulting aspiration pneumonia (inflammation that's caused by bacteria entering the lungs and causing a severe infection) which was the cause of their death. C also had concerns about other aspects of A’s nursing care including the frequency, quality and recording of care, A's skin care and the monitoring and recording of their vital signs. Lastly, C complained that their complaint had initially been designated a “concern” rather than a formal complaint. We took independent advice from a nurse and a consultant geriatrician (a doctor specialising in medical care for the elderly). We found that there had been a failure to provide reasonable nursing care to A which had been acknowledged by the board. However, we found further issues with respect to ongoing risk assessment, skin care in relation to pressure ulcers, malnutrition screening and the implementation of person centred care planning. It was noted that there were difficulties in definitively assessing the standard of care delivered due to failures to adhere to Nursing and Midwifery Council record keeping standards. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of the complaint. Additionally, we found that unreasonable care had been provided with respect to pain relief. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. We also found that the complaint had not been handled in line with the board’s complaints handling procedure. While there were areas for improvement, on balance, communication with the family had not been unreasonable and we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. In relation to Cs complaint around the handling of their co

C complained about a mis-diagnosis of their parent (A) at hospital. C noted that A was diagnosed with pancreatitis (inflammation of the pancreas) during their first admission. A CT scan was taken to confirm this diagnosis. During a later second admission, blood tests and an ultrasound were taken but no CT scan was taken and pancreatitis was again confirmed. A then attended a different hospital while away. A CT scan was taken and A was diagnosed with late stage pancreatic cancer and died shortly after. C complained that the pancreatic cancer had not been diagnosed at the original hospital. The board explained that the original scans confirmed pancreatitis and showed an abnormality which increased the risk of it recurring. During A's second admission, blood tests confirmed acute pancreatitis and there were no clinical signs to indicate that a further CT scan should be arranged. We took independent advice from a gastroenterology (a doctor specialising in the treatment of conditions affecting the liver, intestine and pancreas) adviser. We found that the care and treatment was appropriate throughout the period and that there was no reason to suspect pancreatic cancer. In their second admission, A’s presentation was consistent with an attack of mild acute pancreatitis and immediate further CT scanning was not indicated at this time. As such the complaint was not upheld. Related reading View Decision Report 202300640 as a PDF (24.43 KB) Updated: February 21, 2024

C complained that the board failed to provide them with reasonable care and treatment when they were admitted to an acute medical unit, specifically that they were discharged too soon and that there was a delay in diagnosing that they had suffered a stroke. We took independent advice from an adviser that specialises in acute medicine. We found that the board incorrectly documented that a CT scan had been carried out. Given the seriousness of C’s symptoms and their outcome, it was of concern that this incorrect information was documented in C’s medical records. We found that C should have remained in hospital to be assessed in more detail before they were discharged. We found that more consideration should have been given to C’s symptoms and the possibility that they were related to a stroke. In particular, a CT scan should have been carried out earlier, which could have led to an earlier diagnosis and treatment with medication. On C’s readmission, C’s stroke was visible on a CT scan. It therefore was possible that a CT scan, on their first admission, could have shown C’s stroke. In relation to C’s nursing care, we found that we would have expected to have seen more detailed nursing notes about C before their discharge, for instance, in relation to C’s walking ability. The board apologised for the miscommunication which occurred between nursing staff in relation to C’s fitness for discharge and said that learning had been put in place for effective communication. The board said that this was communicated verbally and therefore there was no paper evidence. We considered this to be unsatisfactory and we upheld the complaint.

C, an MSP, complained on behalf of their constituent (B) about the standard of care B’s late spouse (A) received from their GP practice. A attended an appointment with a GP and received antibiotics and steroids for a possible chest infection. A’s health deteriorated a short time later and they suffered a cardiac arrest at their home. B complained that the practice failed to recognise that A was suffering from a serious cardiac condition. The practice said that a full examination and history had been taken from A. The GP concluded that the symptoms were from the chest wall rather than originating from the heart, with a suggestion of chest infection and narrowing of the airways. A received steroids and an antibiotic in treatment of a chest infection, and given advice on what to do if their condition worsened. On learning of A’s death, a Significant Event Analysis was carried out by the GP, which identified learning points in relation to arranging ECGs (a test that records the electrical activity of the heart, including the rate and rhythm), and strengthening the advice given to a patient about phoning again should their condition worsen. We took independent advice from a GP. We found that it was reasonable for the GP to treat A on suspicion of a respiratory infection having taken a history and clinical examination. While A’s oxygen saturation levels were low, this can also be found in cases of acute or chronic lung disease, such as infection. A also displayed symptoms that were not typical of classic heart attack pain. We found that A’s blood pressure and heart rate were both normal which did not suggest a heart attack. We considered that the GP made a careful assessment and reached a reasonable working diagnosis at the time based on the information available and their clinical judgement. Therefore, we did not uphold C’s complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 202202721 as a PDF (24.8 KB) Updated: January 24, 2024

C complained about the care and treatment provided to their late spouse (A). A had a history of Parkinson’s Disease (a condition in which parts of the brain become progressively damaged over many years), dementia and cerebrovascular disease (a range of conditions that affect the flow of blood through the brain). A was admitted to hospital with a suspected urinary tract infection but their condition deteriorated and they died a few months later. C complained that the board failed to provide A with appropriate nutrition and hydration in the first few weeks following admission, that staff had not treated A with dignity and ascribed A’s symptoms to their pre-existing conditions rather than treating individual needs. C also complained about the personal care provided to A, particularly with respect to management of their skin during admission. The board considered that they provided A with reasonable care and treatment but acknowledged and apologised for a delay in inserting an nasogastric tube (NG tube, a tube that carries food and medicine to the stomach through the nose). We took independent advice from a consultant geriatrician (specialists in care of the elderly) and a registered nurse with experience in tissue viability care. We found that the management of A’s hydration was reasonable. However, there was a period of up to two weeks where A was Nil by Mouth without any other arrangements in place to ensure their nutritional needs were being met. We also found that staff were aware of A’s Parkinson’s Disease and it remained a priority during their admission. However, whilst specialist advice was sought, there was only limited input from relevant specialists and we found it unreasonable that there was not more direct involvement from relevant specialities. We also found that there was a failure to document the reasons for the provision of different medication and changes in delivery method. In relation to wound management, we considered that there were gaps between w

C complained about the care and treatment they received from the board. C suffered a subarachnoid haemorrhage (a form of stroke caused by bleeding on the surface of the brain). Following a period of admission to different hospitals, C was discharged home. C complained that the board failed to communicate appropriately with them after their admission, that they were not fit for discharge and that inadequate rehabilitation plans were made in the community. C chose to stay at a relative’s property and was eventually admitted to a rehabilitation unit but believed this had affected their prognosis. C also complained that the board failed to respond reasonably to their concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine they had received. We took independent advice from a consultant neurologist (specialist in the diagnosis and treatment of disorders of the nervous system) and an occupational therapist. We found that communication with C was unclear and confusing and did not always address the main points C was raising. Therefore, we upheld this part of C’s complaint. In relation to C’s discharge, we noted that more consideration could have been given to supporting C prior to their discharge, given C’s concerns at the time. However, we found the decision making to be appropriate and did not uphold this part of C’s complaint. In relation to plans for C’s rehabilitation, we found that the board made reasonable plans and attempted to commence the initial assessment that would have established what support C required. However, we found that there was a failure to provide C with written information about the plans for their rehabilitation. C was unable to retain this information when given verbally which meant they were unaware of the plan and could not access the support available to them when they were unable to return to their property as quickly as anticipated. Therefore, we upheld this part of C’s complaint. We also found that the board failed to follow up on a commitment given to C to ex

C’s parent (A) was receiving palliative chemotherapy, following a diagnosis of terminal cancer, which was suspended as the COVID-19 pandemic worsened. A was admitted to hospital following a prolonged period of vomiting that had not responded to treatment. A remained in the hospital for several weeks before passing away. C raised complaints with the board detailing C’s family’s concerns about A’s cancer diagnosis, decisions about A’s chemotherapy, aspects of the care and treatment of A, and communication with C and their family during A’s hospital admission. The board’s responses indicated that they considered A’s care and treatment had been reasonable overall, but accepted that there had been some aspects that could have been improved. They accepted that there were aspects of their communication that could have been improved, particularly that they should have contacted A’s next of kin when A’s condition deteriorated over a particular night. C was dissatisfied with the board’s responses and brought their complaint to us. We took independent advice from a specialist in palliative care. We found that A’s treatment had been reasonable overall and that while there were certain aspects of A’s care that could have been improved, overall the board provided reasonable care to A. In relation to the aspects of the complaint about the board’s failure to contact A’s next of kin when A’s condition deteriorated over a particular night and about the board’s responses to C’s complaints, we upheld these aspects of the complaint. In relation to the board’s handling of C’s complaints, we found that there were delays in responding, failure to address various clearly raised issues in responses, unreasonable action around the arrangement of a promised meeting within a reasonable timescale and the inclusion of statements that were not supported by evidence. We upheld these aspects of the complaint.