SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained about the care and treatment provided to their late parent (A). A felt unwell whilst residing in a care home. They were coughing up blood associated with green phlegm and had chest and abdominal pain. Staff at the care home contacted NHS 24 and were advised that a home visit would be conducted. However, the GP subsequently carried out a telephone consultation due to concerns around the transmission of COVID-19. They diagnosed A with a chest infection. A second GP visited 48 hours later and suspected A had pulmonary embolism (a blocked blood vessel in the lungs) and deep vein thrombosis (a blood clot in a vein). A was admitted to hospital where this was confirmed. A died a few months later and C said that pulmonary embolism was described as a contributing factor on their death certificate. C was concerned that the GP did not conduct a home visit and subsequently failed to correctly diagnose A's condition and instead focused on the transmission of COVID-19 and associated risks. C believes that if a home visit had been conducted, A would have been correctly diagnosed 48 hours earlier and could have received treatment. The board responded and identified some issues in the medical history and documentation taken. C remained dissatisfied with the board's response and brought their complaint to us. We took independent advice from a GP. We found that it was reasonable that no home visit was offered in the context of COVID-19. However, the medical history and particularly the documentation taken by the GP was unreasonable. In particular, there was no documentation to support the consideration of respiratory rate/breathlessness, leg pain/swelling and pulmonary embolism. In view of these failings, we upheld C's complaint that the board failed to provide A with reasonable care and treatment. The board had already apologised for the failings and had highlighted them to relevant staff as a learning point. However, we  provided some further feedback to the board. Rela

C complained about the care and treatment provided to their child (A). A developed facial weakness, which was initially diagnosed and treated as Bell's Palsy (temporary weakness or lack of movement affecting one side of the face). A's condition did not improve and MRI scans revealed a mass. It was considered this was likely a vestibular schwannoma (a rare, non-cancerous tumour) and follow-up in three months was arranged. A later attended hospital with bleeding from the ear. C suspected this was related to the tumour but doctors treated A for an ear infection. A developed further ear symptoms and attended hospital again. Further scans showed significant tumour growth, requiring surgical debulking (removing as much of the tumour as possible). A's diagnosis was revised as para-meningeal rhabdomyosarcoma (a rare and aggressive form of cancer). A was treated with chemotherapy but they continued to deteriorate and died within a few months of this diagnosis. C complained that the board's decision not to remove A's tumour when it was first detected was unreasonable. We took independent advice from four advisers: a paediatric neurologist (specialist in the diagnosis and treatment of disorders of the nervous system), a paediatric emergency medicine consultant, a paediatric neurosurgeon (specialist in surgery on the nervous system, especially the brain and spinal cord) and a paediatric oncologist (specialist in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer). We found that there was inadequate documentation of the risks or benefits to A of performing a biopsy or resection of the tumour when it was initially detected. However, we considered that surgically it would not have been possible to carry out a full resection and that the risks of trying to obtain a biopsy in the specific circumstances were too high. We concluded that the decision not to remove the tumour when it was first detected was reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C's complaint. C also complained that th

C complained that the board failed to provide appropriate care for their parent (A) when they were admitted to A&E. A had a cut on their leg which was not treated because the board said they had not been made aware of it. C said that this was not acceptable, noting that patients are not always able to make staff aware of their symptoms. We reviewed the medical records and took independent advice from a consultant in emergency and retrieval medicine. We noted that the explanations provided by the board as to why they were not aware of the wound, and did not treat it at the time, did not tally with the information in the medical records, where it was noted that A had been admitted with a cut to the knee. We progressed the complaint to investigation and asked the board to comment on the initial findings and suggested a resolution approach would be welcome. The board responded, stating they wished to move to resolution and would meet the outcomes asked for. We accepted this outcome. Related reading View Decision Report 202106164 as a PDF (24.27 KB) Updated: March 22, 2023

C complained that the practice failed to refer them for an x-ray following a fall, which contributed to a delay in diagnosing fractured vertebrae. C attended A&E following their injury and then attended the practice a few days later (first consultation). C then had a GP telephone appointment the next day due to ongoing pain (second consultation), and subsequently attended the practice again in person some weeks later (third consultation). C complained that their symptoms were not fully investigated and an obvious bend in their neck was overlooked. We took independent medical advice from a GP. We found that the practice’s actions at the first and second consultations were reasonable in relying on the outcome of the recent A&E assessment, and that an onward referral for x-ray imaging was not indicated at that point. We found, however, that C’s ongoing pain should have been considered persistent by the time of the third consultation, and that their spinal tenderness should have been regarded as significant. We found that these symptoms should have been regarded as ‘red flag’ symptoms (possibly indicative of a more serious pathology), and should have triggered onward referral for imaging assessment. Instead, C was referred for physiotherapy following the third consultation. C subsequently contacted the practice on a fourth occasion to request that this referral be expedited. A GP received this message and concluded that C did not meet the criteria for an urgent referral. The GP did so without taking a history and/or examining C. We found that it was unreasonable to make this decision without evidence. If an examination had been arranged following this fourth contact by C, it may have given rise to an x-ray referral. We concluded that the practice unreasonably missed opportunities to refer C for an x-ray at the third consultation, as well as at the time of C’s subsequent contact regarding the physiotherapy referral. On balance, we upheld this complaint. We no

C complained about the care and treatment provided to their late adult child (A). A had been admitted to hospital from police custody due to cellulitis in their hand. A was monitored overnight and discharged the following day. A was readmitted several days later following a cardiac arrest. On resuscitation, a cannula (a tube that can be inserted into the body, often for the delivery or removal of fluid or for the gathering of samples) was found in A’s arm dated the day of their initial admission. A’s condition deteriorated and they died a few days later. C was concerned that A’s mental health issues were not taken into consideration and that it had been unreasonable to discharge A without these being assessed. C also believed it was unacceptable for A to have been discharged with a cannula in place given A’s known drug misuse. C believed that these failings led directly to A’s death as they had used the cannula to administer drugs immediately before suffering a cardiac arrest. The board had carried out an Adverse Event Review (AER) following C’s complaint. This found a number of failings in A’s care. It made recommendations to try and address these. We took independent medical advice from a consultant in emergency medicine. We found that there had been a full investigation of the case. The key learning points had been identified and actions were being taken to reduce the likelihood of a similar incident occurring in future. There was no evidence of failings which had not been addressed by the AER. We upheld C’s complaints due to the acknowledged failings in A’s care.

C complained about the care and treatment that their grandparent (A) received at the Royal Infirmary Edinburgh (RIE). A was admitted to the RIE following a fall. Following a period of recovery, A was discharged to their home. A was subsequently readmitted to the RIE a short time later and died in hospital following this second admission. C complained to the board about aspects of A’s care during their first admission to RIE, including the board’s management of A’s nutrition and hydration, the physiotherapy A received, and the planning for A’s discharge, but the board did not identify any failings. We took independent advice from a geriatrician adviser. We found that the management of A’s nutrition and hydration, the provision of physiotherapy to A, and the planning for A’s discharge was reasonable. We did not uphold C’s complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 202000048 as a PDF (24.18 KB) Updated: December 21, 2022

C complained on behalf of their partner (A) about the care and treatment provided by the board when A had hip replacement surgery. Specifically, C complained about the management of A’s pain in the post-operative period. The board acknowledged the discomfort experienced by A, but when it became apparent that surgeons could not manage A’s pain effectively, the Pain Management Team was involved. The board considered the care delivered following surgery, and in reducing medication after discharge, was reasonable. We took independent advice from an anaesthetics and pain management adviser. We found that whilst pain management in the post-operative period is challenging, the board’s management of A’s pain was reasonable following surgery. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. Additionally, we found that, with respect to reducing A’s medication, the advice provided by the board to A following discharge was appropriate. On this basis, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201911968 as a PDF (24.23 KB) Updated: December 21, 2022

C attended the A&E department at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh having suffered a fall and was diagnosed with muscular pain. They re-attended four months later, when a diagnosis of fractured vertebrae was made. C complained to the board that there were failures to fully investigate their symptoms and arrange appropriate x-ray imaging at the initial attendance. When responding to the complaint, the board had initially concluded that a ‘red-flag’ symptom had been missed which should have prompted imaging. They upheld C’s complaint, apologised and outlined the steps that they would take to learn from this. They subsequently reviewed their position with neurosurgery colleagues and decided that C had been managed appropriately. We took advice independent advice from an emergency medicine consultant. We found that C was appropriately assessed and did not meet the criteria in the relevant guidelines for their injury to have been considered high-risk and requiring imaging. We did not uphold the complaint. We found that we weren’t critical of the board for reviewing and revising their decision. However, we were critical that they had not communicated this to C and shared recommendations.

C complained on behalf of their client (B) about the care and treatment provided to B’s late sibling (A). A had attended the A&E in mental distress, had attended their GP the same day, and had a hospital appointment with the crisis team a few days later. At this appointment it was considered that hospital admission was not required. A completed suicide a short time later. B felt that the board had failed to provide reasonable care and treatment to A. We took independent advice from a mental health nursing adviser. We found that the board had carried out a detailed review of A’s care and had taken some action which was reasonable. However, we found that the risk assessment carried out by the board when A presented at A&E lacked transparency and rigour. The assessment carried out a few days later provided more detail, however, it lacked a structured risk assessment and the clinical reasoning behind not offering any ongoing planned follow-up and the weighing of current and historical risk indicators against protective factors was not fully transparent. The record keeping of the risk management decisions was also not sufficient to show the way in which risks factors and protective factors were balanced. We also found that it was unreasonable that the board’s administrative systems resulted in an erroneous early diagnosis of borderline personality disorder being recorded. We found that the Adverse Event Review process did not appear to attempt to establish why things occurred as they did, rather than simply establishing what occurred. Therefore, we upheld the complaint

C complained about the care and treatment provided to their parent (A) by the board. A was admitted to the hospital due to a catheter blockage. On examination, it was determined that A required specialist treatment and an ambulance transfer to another hospital within the board was arranged. It took approximately six hours for the ambulance to arrive by which time A was showing signs of sepsis (a life-threatening reaction to an infection). Antibiotics treatment was initiated on A’s arrival and they had regular washouts of their catheter and continuous irrigation due to blockages and bleeding. A had ongoing uro-sepsis and required blood transfusions. A suffered a heart attack during their admission and blood-thinning medication was prescribed. However, this made the bleeding at the catheter site increase. A died in hospital several days later. C complained to the board about A’s care and treatment but the board did not identify any failings. The board did identify and apologise for failure in communication with C. C remained unhappy and asked us to investigate. C complained that the staff in the first hospital had unreasonably delayed in treating A with antibiotics. C complained that staff in the second hospital subjected A to unnecessary pain while irrigating their catheter. C also complained that staff failed to identify that A’s catheter had been incorrectly placed. C complained about a decision to prescribe A with the anti-coagulant. C also complained about the palliative care given to A. We took independent advice from a consultant in emergency medicine and a consultant urological surgeon (specialist in the male and female urinary tract, and the male reproductive organs). We found that staff in the first hospital had unreasonably delayed in treating A with antibiotics and we upheld this aspect of C’s complaint. We found that the care and treatment given to A in the second hospital was reasonable. However, we considered that staff had failed to re

C complained about the standard of medical treatment provided to their late spouse (A) by the board following diagnosis and treatment of upper tract urothelial cancer (a type of kidney cancer). A’s condition deteriorated and they died. C complained that clinicians failed to, amongst other things, communicate with them in a reasonable way about treatment options and take reasonable action in response to A’s clinical condition. We took independent advice from a urology specialist (concerning the male and female urinary tract, and the male reproductive organs) and a renal specialist (concerning the kidneys). We found that A’s cancer had likely been more aggressive than originally suspected. However, given the information available at the time, the option of treatment offered to A had been a reasonable approach. We also found that the board had failed to adequately document that all treatment options had been discussed with A, and that a specialist renal cancer nurse should have been available to the family sooner. We found that had A’s treatment been carried out sooner (and in line with cancer waiting time standards), it may have improved their health outcomes. For these reasons, we upheld this aspect of C’s complaint. C also complained that during a hospital admission the board had failed to reasonably manage the removal of A’s nephrostomy tube (a catheter inserted through the skin and into the kidney) causing them to suffer an arterial trauma (or bleed). We found that bleeding is a recognised complication of such a procedure and there was no evidence to indicate any failings in the removal of the tube. We did not uphold this aspect of C’s complaint. C further complained that when A’s condition deteriorated following dialysis, unit staff advised the family to take A home, or to take them to the emergency department themselves. C also complained that there had been no end-of-life plan in place for A. We found that there was insufficient evidence to determine

C complained about the care and treatment their late parent (A) received. A had a diagnosis of small cell lung cancer and was transferred to the Western General Hospital for urgent treatment of metastatic lung cancer. This was during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Shortly after A's admission, the patient in the bay beside A was confirmed positive for COVID-19. A received a test for COVID-19 and was discharged home. A was then made aware that they had COVID-19. A's condition deteriorated and they died. C complained about the placement of A within an amber zone, rather than a green zone at the hospital. C was also concerned that A was placed in a bay beside the other patient, who subsequently tested positive for COVID-19. We sought independent advice from a consultant oncologist (a specialist in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer). We noted that the COVID-19 guidance in place at the time required NHS Boards to have COVID/Non-COVID areas and provided examples of pathways for how NHS Boards might separate patients. The guidance was not prescriptive and each NHS Board had to decide how to apply the guidance to the different hospital environments within their area. We found that the board’s internal pathways were consistent with the pathways set out in the guidance. Given that A did not meet the criteria for a low risk/green zone within the hospital, we found it was reasonable to place A in an amber zone based on the information known at the time. We therefore did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. We recognised how distressing it must have been for C to learn that their parent had contracted COVID-19 while in hospital. To assess this aspect of C's complaint we obtained the relevant clinical records for the other patient and shared these with the independent adviser. We found that the symptoms the other patient was exhibiting were not thought to be due to COVID-19 and we did not identify any failure regarding the placement of A beside this

C, an advocate for A, complained about the way A was treated by the board for their chronic psychotic illness. A experienced a relapse when administration of their medication was changed from a depot injection (a slow release method) to an oral route. A subsequently required two in-patient admissions. C complained the second admission only occurred due to a failure by the board to manage A's medication properly, and to being discharged from their first admission when they were still experiencing psychotic symptoms. We took independent clinical advice from a consultant psychiatrist on the board’s management of A's medication and the circumstances of their discharge from hospital during their first in-patient admission. In reference to the board managing A's transition back onto their medication by depot injection, we found that this had been managed appropriately, and in agreement with A. However, we noted that the documentation of this could have been better. While we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint, we gave feedback to the board in respect of record-keeping. Regarding the timing of A's discharge from hospital, we found that this had been reasonable and person-centred in approach, noting there was no reference in the medical records to A experiencing psychotic symptoms at the time of their discharge. As such, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 202103398 as a PDF (24.38 KB) Updated: July 20, 2022

C has Asperger's Syndrome (a form of autism, in which people may find difficulty in social relationships and in communicating) / Autistic Spectrum Disorder and a diagnosis of chronic fatigue and Functional Neurological Symptom Disorder (symptoms in the body which appear to be caused by problems in the nervous system but which are not caused by a physical neurological disease or disorder). They were referred by their GP to neurology (specialists in the nervous system) to explore a possible neurological basis for their pain symptoms. C raised a number of concerns about this consultation. C complained that no meaningful assessment took place, that the conclusions were unreasonable and that the consultant neurologist wrongly stated a psychiatric opinion by stating that they had a complex personality disorder. C also noted that there were inaccuracies in the board's response to their complaint. The board responded to C's individual concerns and concluded that overall, they considered the assessment was reasonable. We reviewed the relevant medical records, evidence provided by C and took independent advice from a consultant neurologist adviser. We found that there were not any significant failings and that the assessment was of a reasonable standard, consistent with General Medical Council guidelines and that the reasons for the referral were reasonably addressed. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 202005840 as a PDF (24.45 KB) Updated: June 22, 2022

A was admitted to A&E at the Royal Hospital for Sick Children with symptoms including retching, a purple rash on their leg and feeling agitated. A had a diagnosis of quadriplegic cerebral palsy (form of cerebral palsy in which all four limbs are affected), was non-verbal and received PEG feeding (passing a thin tube through the skin to give food, fluids and medicines directly into the stomach). A was subsequently admitted to hospital after assessment. A was observed in hospital and underwent a number of investigations. A gastrojejunal tube (when a thin, long tube is threaded into the jejunal portion of the small intestine) was inserted to address concerns about A's nutrition. A became increasingly distressed following the procedure and their condition deteriorated. A underwent emergency surgery where a caecal volvulus (obstruction of the bowel) was diagnosed. C complained to the board that they had missed several opportunities to diagnose and treat the bowel obstruction which was causing A's symptoms. The board produced a report detailing the history of A's care and decision making during the period. The main finding was that there were no identified failings in the care provided to A and that there was no misdiagnosis of A's condition. Dissatisfied with the board's response to the complaint, C brought their complaint to our office. We took independent advice from a paediatric gastroenterologist (a doctor specialising in the treatment of conditions affecting the liver, intestine and pancreas) and a paediatric radiologist (a specialist in the analysis of images of the body). We found that the investigations and treatment provided were appropriate. There was a delay in obtaining a CT scan, however the delay was relatively small in the context of the period of A's admission. As such, we found that the care and treatment provided to A was reasonable and we did not uphold the complaint. There were some aspects of care which we identified as being suitable to f

C complained about delays in treatment that was meant to be provided to their late spouse (A). They told us that A had been referred to the board from another area for heart surgery, but that this took so long to arrange, A's condition deteriorated to a point that surgery was no longer viable and they subsequently died. C was also concerned about the board's handling of their complaints about the matter. We took independent advice from a cardiology consultant (a specialist in diseases and abnormalities of the heart). We found that, while there were delays in arranging scans, these were the responsibility of the board in A's home area, so Lothian NHS Board could not be said to be responsible for this. With regards to C's concerns about complaints handling, we found that the board's approach had been reasonable, with appropriately empathetic language used throughout and regular updates provided. Given these points, we did not uphold C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201907379 as a PDF (24.23 KB) Updated: May 18, 2022

C complained that there had been an unreasonable delay in their late parent (A) receiving a prescription of antibiotics following a consultation with an out-of-hours GP from the unscheduled care service, operated by the board. During the consultation, the GP considered that A had developed a lower respiratory tract infection (an infection of the lungs), which should be treated with Co-amoxiclav (a type of antibiotic). However, the GP had attended the consultation without a prescription pad and did not carry the medication in their vehicle. The GP subsequently arranged for A's prescription to be faxed to a pharmacy on their return to base to be provided to A the next day. However, the pharmacy to which the prescription had been faxed was closed the following day due to a public holiday, which resulted in a delay of 48 hours before the prescription could be provided to A. In response, the board apologised that the GP had attended the consultation without a prescription pad and for the distress that this had caused A and their family. The board stated that it could not explain why the GP had attended without a prescription pad but had reminded staff in a monthly update to ensure that prescription pads were checked prior to carrying out home visits and that prescriptions were only faxed to pharmacies that could provide medication in a timely manner. The board also confirmed that it was in the process of developing a checklist system and a written policy and protocol specifying the checks that staff were required to complete at the start of each shift prior to commencing home visits. We took independent advice from a GP. We found that it had been unreasonable for the GP to attend the consultation without a prescription pad and to fail to ensure that the antibiotics A required were available to them sooner based on A's presentation at consultation. We also considered that the reminder provided by the board to staff was insufficient to ensure that a similar occurre

C complained to us about the care and treatment that they had received from their GP practice. C told us that the practice had failed to carry out appropriate prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing after they found out that C was at increased risk of prostate cancer genetically. They told us that after an initial test, which was normal, there was a delay of around four years in carrying out a further test, at which time the test showed elevated results and they were subsequently diagnosed with cancer. C considered that this delay had a considerable impact on their prognosis, as their cancer had by that time spread, which they had been told was unlikely to have been the case had they been diagnosed earlier. C also complained that the practice had failed to appropriately respond to their concerns about this, both in the way that they had investigated the concerns, and the manner in which they had responded, which C had found to be uncaring. We took independent advice from a GP adviser. We found that the practice had failed to handle C's testing appropriately. In particular, that they unreasonably assessed that regular testing was not required based on guidance intended for those not at increased genetic risk and that they unreasonably failed to seek further advice and clarity from specialist services on the request to consider regular testing. We also noted that when the test was subsequently agreed as part of other blood tests, this was missed in error, and they then failed to identify this had been missed or notify C, leaving them with the impression that this had provided normal results. Therefore, we upheld C's complaint that their testing had been mishandled. Our investigation also found that the practice had not responded reasonably to C's concerns, as the Significant Event Analysis (SEA) they carried out was not of a reasonable standard, and they had failed to provide appropriate apologies for the failures that were identified by their own investigations

C and B complained about the care and treatment that their adult child (A) received from the practice. A had sought advice and treatment for a lack of energy, loss of libido and difficulty gaining weight. They were referred to the metabolic unit in hospital and, subsequently, to an adult eating disorders service. A had been diagnosed with a hormonal deficiency and a number of potential causes for their symptoms were considered. However, A and their family were concerned about the practice's clinical management of A's condition and the lack of a clear diagnosis or effective treatment plan. A subsequently completed suicide. Following a meeting and written correspondence with the practice, C and B remained dissatisfied with a number of aspects of the treatment A received. We took independent advice from a GP. A's case was complex and whilst with hindsight it was clear that A had an underlying mental health condition, a physical cause for their symptoms could not be ruled out. We were satisfied that the practice arranged numerous tests and investigations to explore a physical cause of A's symptoms. Additional tests were carried out by third parties and we found that the practice appropriately reviewed these and communicated clearly with A as to the results, their significance and the next steps in terms of finding a clear diagnosis. We found that the practice considered at an early stage that there may have been a mental health element to A's condition. However, A was not keen to pursue this. We were satisfied that it would have been inappropriate in the circumstances for the practice to push further investigations into A's mental health. We were also satisfied that the practice communicated well with secondary care specialists and managed A's overall diagnostic pathway reasonably. Therefore, we did not uphold these aspects of C and B's complaint. However, we were critical of the practice's communication with C and B. It was A's clear intention that they be

C complained about the care and treatment provided to their late parent (A) when they were admitted to hospital for investigations of lung cancer. A had an out-patient appointment for a CT scan, however, the day before this appointment, A was admitted to hospital due to increased haemoptysis (coughing up of blood). There was a delay in performing the CT scan due to miscommunication between the clinical team and radiology, which the board have acknowledged. When A was taken for the scan, they suffered a massive haemoptysis and a subsequent cardiac arrest and died. C complained about the communication failures which led to a delay in arranging the CT scan and that insufficient efforts were made to resuscitate A. To investigate C's complaint, we reviewed the clinical records and sought independent advice from a consultant radiologist (a specialist in the analysis of images of the body). Our investigation found that while there were communication failures in arranging A's CT scan on an in-patient basis, we did not consider the delay caused to be unreasonable as A's condition was stable and there were no further episodes of haemoptysis. We did however, uphold the complaint on the basis that there were communication failings. We made no recommendations due to action already taken by the board. Our investigation also found that reasonable attempts were made at resuscitation when A suffered the cardiac arrest. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 202008128 as a PDF (24.42 KB) Updated: May 18, 2022

C was a patient of the practice for a number of years where they were treated for thyroid (a gland in the front inside area of the neck) problems and anaemia (a deficiency in the number or quality of red blood cells in the body). C began to experience changes in their behaviour. Following an incident, the police and social work became involved and C was admitted to hospital. C was discharged the following day after a psychiatric assessment. However, C subsequently had to attend court. When gathering information for their court appearance, C obtained a copy of their medical records from the practice. Upon reviewing these, C considered that there had been failures to diagnose deficiencies of vitamin B12 and vitamin D. C also considered that there had been issues with the practice's management of their anaemia and thyroid problems and the long-term prescription of a proton-pump inhibitor (a class of medications that cause a profound and prolonged reduction of stomach acid production). C submitted a formal complaint to the practice regarding their care and treatment and their handling of C's medical records. C said that, whilst the practice responded to their concerns about the medical records, they did not address the complaints about C's care and treatment due to the time that had passed. We took independent advice from a GP. We found that, whilst C did have some abnormalities in their blood tests, these were relatively minor and would not have caused the behavioural changes C experienced. We found that the long-term proton-pump inhibitor prescription was reasonable and that C's thyroid problem was routinely monitored and managed. We found that the practice failed to notify C of their low vitamin D results, but concluded that the implications of this oversight were minimal. We did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint. With regard to the practice's handling of C's complaint, we found that that their decision to rule the complaint as outwith the time limi

C complained about care and treatment provided to their parent (A) by a duty general practitioner (GP) at the practice. C contacted a community nurse team to raise concerns that A's catheter was draining slowly and that there was blood in their urine bag. A nurse visited A at their home later the same day. They changed A's catheter bag and provided advice. After they had left A's home, the nurse discussed their actions with the GP. The GP agreed with the nurse's actions and their assessment of A. Later that evening A's catheter blocked. A was subsequently admitted to hospital and diagnosed with urosepsis (a serious infection of the urinary tract). A subsequently died in hospital. C complained that the GP had failed to visit A despite being provided with information indicating that they had a serious infection. C also complained that the GP failed to provide A with medical treatment. We took independent advice from a GP. We found that the GP acted reasonably and noted that they were not provided with information indicating that A had a serious infection. We found that the GP’s agreement with the treatment and advice provided by the nurse was reasonable in light of the information available to them at the relevant time. We did not uphold C’s complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201910514 as a PDF (56.61 KB) Updated: March 29, 2022

C complained about the failure of emergency mental health services to treat them during crisis admissions. C stated that they had been brought to the hospital on multiple occasions by police but that an assessment was not always carried out. C also complained that they had not been allocated a psychiatrist (a medical practitioner who specialises in the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness) or a community psychiatric nurse. The board responded by advising that services treated C appropriately when they attended and completed assessments when required. They also stated that C previously was supported by a psychiatrist but disengaged from this service and did not re-engage with services in the intervening period. C was unhappy with this response and brought their complaint to us. We took independent advice from a psychiatric adviser and a mental health nurse. We found that the medical records showed that the board had acted reasonably and occasions where full assessments were not completed were appropriate and in keeping with strategies put in place to treat C. We considered that the plan to manage C's crisis contacts was in their best interests and we found no evidence of mental health assessment's being unreasonably withheld. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint. In relation to the allocation of a psychiatrist, we found that C had disengaged with services. However, proposed actions suggested by a psychiatrist to re-engage and support C did not appear to be actioned and records showed an unexplained gap in contact between C and services of around 18 months. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of C's complaint. C requested a review of our decision and the case was reopened for further consideration. Details of this are explained below. C was admitted to A&E at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh (RIE). After being transferred to an acute medical unit (AMU) from A&E, they left the ward and returned to their home. The police were contacted

C complained on behalf of their late parent (A) about the care and treatment provided by their GP at the practice. A had been attending the practice with shortness of breath and a persistent cough. An urgent referral for suspected cancer was made, however C considered that the practice should have made the referral sooner. We reviewed the relevant medical records and sought independent advice from a GP. We found that as A was high-risk patient who was failing to respond to antibiotics, an urgent referral to the chest clinic should have been made eleven months earlier and as such, we concluded that the practice failed to correctly follow the Scottish Suspected Cancer Referral guidelines. We upheld the complaint.

C complained on behalf of their late partner (A) about the care and treatment they received at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh for heart disease. A’s condition deteriorated and they were transferred to the intensive care unit and then ultimately referred to another health board for a heart transplant. A died five days later. C said that the board did not treat the left side of A’s heart which resulted in a grave outcome for A. C also said that the board did not notice that A was deteriorating and that A should have been transferred to the other health board earlier. The board said that when A was admitted they had a blocked right coronary artery and treatment was given for this. They explained that there was no viability in the left side of A’s heart (due to damage caused by a previous heart attack) and therefore, to treat that side would have subjected A to additional risk. The board said that A was very unwell, but reasonably stable until their sudden deterioration. They said that there was no indication that an earlier referral outwith the health board was warranted or would have altered the outcome. We took independent clinical advice from a consultant cardiologist (a doctor that that deals with diseases and abnormalities of the heart). We found that it was reasonable for the board not to have a treatment plan for the left side of A’s heart as it would have exposed A to increased risk and there would have been no benefit to A (due to irreversible damage caused by a previous heart attack). The board reasonably monitored A’s condition and provided appropriate care and treatment in response to their deteriorating condition. We also found that the board’s decision to refer A to another heath board was reasonable and that there was no indication this should have been done earlier. As such, we did not uphold this complaint. We did, however, provide feedback to the board regarding their communication with A. Related reading View Decision Report 202005961 as a PDF (24.