SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained that the board failed to provide their child (A) with reasonable care and treatment. C understood that A had a condition known as paediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome (PANS) or paediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorder associated with streptococcus (PANDAS, infection-induced autoimmune conditions that disrupt children's normal neurologic functioning). A had been given intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG, the use of a mixture of antibodies to treat a number of health conditions) treatment but this had been discontinued and stopped suddenly. C stated that the treatment should not have been stopped and wanted this treatment to be available to A in the future if A needed it. We took independent advice from a consultant neurologist (a specialist in the diagnosis and treatment of disorders of the nervous system). We found that the treatment was not suitable for A and the possible diagnoses for A's condition. We considered that it was appropriate the treatment stopped. However, we noted that it should never have been given as a treatment at any stage. We also found that the board sent spinal fluid for testing to a laboratory in England that did not arrive there. While this was not the outcome C was seeking, we upheld the complaint on the basis that IVIG should not have not have been given to A at all.

C complained about the treatment provided at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh to their late parent (A) after they were admitted having suffered a stroke. C complained that the board failed to discharge A in a reasonable timescale. We took independent advice from a consultant geriatrician (a specialist in medicine of the elderly). We considered that, while medically well, A was not fit for discharge, requiring a further period of in-patient care to recover prior to being ready to return home. As such, we did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint. C complained that the board failed to provide reasonable care to allow A to maintain function in their legs. We found that board staff were trying to maximise what A could do, however due to their stroke, pre-existing conditions and subsequent infection, their attempts were unsuccessful. Physiotherapy input started two days after A's admission, which we considered to be prompt. We also found evidence that A attended sixteen physiotherapy sessions, with more offered but A was not well enough to accept them. This indicated that there was regular input by physiotherapists. As such, we did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint. During A's admission, they contracted influenza (flu). C complained that the board failed to provide reasonable treatment after they contracted influenza. We found that antibiotics were administered reasonably and A's condition was appropriately monitored. We noted the challenges in determining if a worsening of someone's condition was related solely to the initial influenza infection, or if an additional (secondary) infection with another organism was involved. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint. However, we noted that consideration should have been given to anti-viral treatment for A, as indicated by the guidance available at the time and we fed this back to the board. Related reading View Decision Report 202002290 as a PDF (24.67 KB) Updated: August 18, 2021

C complained about the care and treatment provided to their spouse (A). A suffered from progressive lung disease and required prostate surgery. There was a significant delay in performing A's surgery, during which time A's health deteriorated. A was discharged home following their operation, but was readmitted the following day and died shortly afterwards. C believed that A would have survived had the operation been performed sooner, as their health would have been better. C also said that A's death certificate was inaccurate, as it stated that A had died from community acquired pneumonia. C said that A had not been well when they were discharged, had been at home for less than 24 hours and had spent the majority of that period in bed. We took independent medical advice. We found that A's condition had not been properly monitored following their operation, as the board's assessment had been based on assumptions about A's condition prior to admission. This meant that A had been discharged without evidence of a deterioration in their condition being properly considered. We also noted that it was not possible to determine that A's pneumonia was 'community acquired'. We considered that A's care and treatment had fallen below a reasonable standard. However, we noted that it is not possible to be certain what the outcome would have been had A been operated on sooner. We also found that C's complaint had not been handled to a reasonable standard. The board had initially informed this office that it had nothing to add to its response to C's complaint. However, following our enquiries, the board accepted that it was unlikely that A had acquired pneumonia in the community. Additionally the board's complaint investigation had failed to identify that A's condition was not properly assessed prior to discharge. We upheld both of C's complaints.

C complained to us on behalf of their late relative (A) regarding treatment A received from the board leading up to their death. C said that the board had failed to provide reasonable nutritional care and treatment after A was admitted to the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh suffering from complications due to poor nutritional intake. They considered that the board had unreasonably delayed in diagnosing the likely cause of this nutritional deficit. C also said that the board had failed to reasonably communicate with A and their family, as they were only informed of the likelihood that A would die with around 48 hours' notice, previously believing A was due to be discharged. We took independent advice from an appropriately qualified adviser. We found that the board had provided reasonable nutritional care and treatment, with no delay in diagnosis. We therefore did not uphold those aspects of the complaint. However, we also found that the board had failed to appropriately assess A's likely prognosis and communicate this to them or to their family. As such, we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

C attended hospital on a number of occasions for the removal of some teeth. At one consultation staff said C was aggressive and asked C to leave the department. C complained about the care and treatment provided to them and that the zero tolerance policy was applied unfairly to them. At a further consultation, C said they were told the hospital would not be able to provide further treatment for them. We took independent advice from a dentist. We found that the care and treatment provided to C was appropriate and the record-keeping was of high quality. There was good evidence of staff spending time with C to explain their treatment options. We found that staff were entitled to ask C to leave when they perceived C's behaviour to be aggressive and threatening. We also noted that the board had reassured C that they could receive treatment at the hospital, but this would be reviewed if C behaved aggressively again in the future. We did not uphold C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201904087 as a PDF (24.18 KB) Updated: June 23, 2021

C complained about a failure to diagnose that their new born baby (A) had a dislocated hip from birth. A was reviewed by a physiotherapist (a person qualified to treat disease, injury, or deformity by physical methods such as massage, heat treatment, and exercise) at the Royal Hospital for Sick Children, and C raised concerns that their request for an ultrasound scan was refused despite the presence of a number of red flag risk factors for hip dysplasia (where the 'ball and socket' of the hip are not properly formed). A's condition was not diagnosed until some months later. The board noted that the physiotherapist found A's hips to be functioning normally. They accepted that initial screening will always have the opportunity for human error. They said that this is mitigated by regular teaching and peer review, and ensuring staff are competent in examination before reviewing patients. However, as a result of this complaint, they made changes to their hip screening procedures. We took independent advice from a paediatric physiotherapy specialist. We considered that the presence of a number of recognised risk factors of hip dysplasia, together with a doctor's prior positive clinical assessment of hip instability, should have led the physiotherapist to arrange an ultrasound. The decision not to carry out a scan of A's hips was unreasonable and resulted in a delayed diagnosis. We upheld this complaint. We were advised that the changes already made by the board to their hip screening procedures should improve the clinical process going forward.

C complained that the board failed to appropriately triage their relative (A) when A self-presented to the Medical Assessment Unit (MAU) at Western General Hospital feeling unwell. A spoke with the receptionist who took details of their symptoms and, having discussed A's symptoms with clinical staff, the receptionist advised A that they should contact NHS 24. A left the hospital and contacted NHS 24 who advised A to take paracetamol for the pain. A was taken to another hospital in the early hours of the next day and had an emergency operation for a ruptured appendix. In response to the complaint, the board explained that the receptionist acted in line with their normal processes. C was not satisfied with the response provided and brought the complaint to our office. We found that the board were unable to evidence that A was reviewed by a triage nurse or doctor in person as per their protocol. Given there was no evidence that the appropriate protocol was followed, we upheld the complaint. In addition, having reviewed the handling of C's original complaint, we concluded that the board failed to appropriately investigate and respond to C's complaint.

C, a support and advocacy worker, complained on behalf of their client (A) about the board's failure to share confidential patient information with A. C said that information was unreasonably withheld and should have been shared as their safety was at risk. C also complained that the board wrongly treated A's complaint as a 'concern' and they took an unreasonable length of time to respond. The board said that they were not in a position to share the information A had requested, however they recognised there was some learning for the clinical team and they took steps to address this. The board also said they did not treat C's initial email as a complaint as it clearly stated A wanted to “discuss their experience and concerns”. The board recognised their written response was not issued within a reasonable timescale. We took independent advice from a mental health nurse. We found that it would have likely been reasonable and legally justifiable for some of the information A requested to be shared with them. We identified that staff were not fully familiar with the national guidance on consent, confidentiality and information sharing. We upheld the complaint. In relation to complaint handling, we concluded that it was reasonable to treat A's initial email as a concern and a request for a meeting. However, matters became confused when the board's written response following the meeting included SPSO referral details, which inferred it was a complaint response. When C submitted a formal complaint, we noted that the board did not meet the required timescales. On that basis, we upheld the complaint.

C complained on behalf of their partner (A) about surgery they had on their hip. A, who had previously had their hip replaced, was admitted to hospital with an infection which was found to have originated in their hip and required surgery (the first surgery). The following year, A developed pain in their hip again. Scans confirmed that this would again require surgery, which was carried out later that year (the second surgery). A was discharged shortly after, but required to be readmitted twice due to pain. On the second readmission a fracture was identified above their knee, requiring additional surgery. C complained about the first surgery, the second surgery, the aftercare A received and how the board responded to their complaint. We took independent advice from a consultant orthopaedic surgeon (a surgeon who specialises in the musculoskeletal system). We found that the first surgery was carried out appropriately. C had been concerned that the surgeon had used an incorrectly sized piece of orthopaedic equipment (a stem), however, we noted that the surgeon either used an identical, or slightly smaller stem as they decided not to remove the original cement. We found that this was reasonable. We found that the second surgery was also carried out appropriately. The surgeon cut a small ‘window’ in the bone to facilitate removal of the cement which was established practice. We considered that this was probably the source of the fracture which A was later found to have, however, there was no indication of a fracture at the time of the surgery. We were satisfied that the care and treatment A received after their second surgery was reasonable. As the evidence indicated that the clinical care provided was reasonable, we did not uphold these complaints. In relation to complaint handling, we found that there was miscommunication regarding delays and a failure to clarify all the issues of complaint. We upheld this aspect of C's complaint.

C was an in-patient in a general adult psychiatry ward at a hospital outwith the Lothian NHS board area. A referral was made to transfer C and their baby to the Parent and Baby Psychiatric Unit at St John's Hospital but this was refused. C said that they were finding caring for their baby difficult in an adult environment and complained that the refusal was unreasonable. We took independent advice from an appropriately qualified adviser. We found that the decision not to approve the transfer was reasonable from a clinical perspective. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 202001512 as a PDF (23.99 KB) Updated: January 20, 2021

C complained on behalf of their late sibling (A). A was admitted to hospital to have their pacemaker and the leads, which attach it to the heart, extracted. There was a 2-3% risk of major bleeding and A signed a consent form for the procedure. During the operation, the surgeon successfully removed one of the pacemaker leads but whilst attempting to remove the final two, A's blood pressure suddenly dropped. This was recognised by the anaesthetist and the major haemorrhage protocol was activated. An emergency call for surgical assistance was placed. Despite chest compressions and fluids, staff were unable to stop the bleeding and A died. When the surgeon had tried to remove one of the leads, a tear had been created in one of the major veins around the heart. C complained that the surgery had not been carried out to a reasonable standard. We took independent advice from a consultant cardiologist (a doctor that specialises in diseases and abnormalities of the heart). A's pacemaker, at several years old, would be well embedded in scar tissue. There was infection at the site, and the device was pushing through the front wall of A's chest. There were other options for treating this, but laser lead extraction was the best option for a long-term recovery. The operation appeared to have been carried out reasonably, with staff taking prompt and appropriate action when A's blood pressure dropped. There was nothing more the staff could have done to save A's life once the bleed occurred. We did raise concerns about the consent process. We noted that A had signed a consent form on the day and the risk of major bleeding was noted. However, the board should have used a more detailed consent form with other fields, including alternative treatment options, and that consent should have been obtained prior to the day of surgery as well as the day of it. On balance, we did not uphold the complaint as the evidence indicated that the standard of A's surgery was reasonable.

C complained about the care and treatment their parent (A) received at St John's Hospital. C considered that A did not receive reasonable medical or nursing care and treatment; in particular, that their ward placement on a ward which was only used during the winter period to provide additional medical capacity was inappropriate and resulted in A not receiving continuity of care. C raised concerns about A’s weight management and the board’s response to A’s concerns about their vision. The board indicated that they considered that A was appropriately placed and received the same standard of care they would have on any other ward. The board acknowledged that one weekly weigh-in had been missed for A but indicated that improvements had been made in the form of more robust processes in this area of patient care. We took independent advice from a geriatric (medicine of the elderly) and general medical adviser and a nursing adviser. We noted that the board had missed one weekly weigh-in for A and that there had been a delay in ophthalmologist (a specialist in the branch of medicine concerned with the study and treatment of disorders and diseases of the eye) input. However, we concluded that overall A received reasonable care and treatment. Whilst some shortcomings were identified, A was placed in an appropriate ward that, on the whole, appropriately met their needs and they received the same care and treatment that they would have had they been on a general medical ward. Therefore, we did not uphold C’s complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201810161 as a PDF (24.48 KB) Updated: November 18, 2020

Ms C complained about the care and treatment she received from the board for her ongoing health problems. She said that the board initially failed to appropriately diagnose and treat her health condition and then failed to provide her with appropriate care and treatment for her condition. Ms C said she was advised by the board that she had multiple sclerosis (MS) and she never had any reason to doubt the diagnosis, until ten years later she discovered she had a condition which inhibited the absorption of vitamin B12, when she found that supplementing her diet with liquid vitamin B12 resulted in her experiencing improvements in many of her symptoms. We took independent medical advice from a consultant neurologist (a specialist in the diagnosis and treatment of disorders of the nervous system). We found that Ms C’s initial diagnosis of probable MS was appropriate. The evidence suggested that the description given to Ms C of the level of certainty of her MS was reasonable and in line with the actual status of her diagnosis at that time. We found that vitamin B12 deficiency would not be expected to have presented with the pattern of relapsing–remitting disease in Ms C’s case. We considered that there was no indication to have administered vitamin B12 injections in the early stage of Ms C’s illness, as there was no evidence that her condition related to vitamin B12 deficiency. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of the complaint. In terms of Ms C’s subsequent treatment, Ms C raised a number of issues, including that the board did not order a further spinal MRI to compare with the spinal MRI done at the time of her diagnosis. We found that the main purpose of MRI scans in a case such as this was to secure the diagnosis, rather than to monitor progress and there was, therefore, no clear indication to repeat the scans any more regularly than was actually done. We considered that the board provided Ms C with appropriate subsequent care and treatment and did not uphold thi

C, who had a history of breast cancer, complained that the board failed to provide them with appropriate care and treatment at the Western General Hospital for a lump on their breast. The lump was investigated but found to be of no concern. Two years later, a clinically suspicious lump was identified and investigations showed evidence of an invasive carcinoma (cancer). C raised a number of issues including why a trainee doctor was allowed to perform a biopsy on the first lump identified on their breast and whether the doctor performed the procedure correctly. C also questioned why the lump in their breast was not removed or investigated further. We took independent advice from a consultant breast surgeon. We found that it was acceptable for the trainee doctor to perform the procedure under the supervision of the consultant surgeon, as was the case here, and that there was no evidence that the procedure was performed incorrectly. We also considered that the decision taken by the board at that time not to remove the lump or carry out further investigation was reasonable. C’s case went through the correct process and we determined that C’s treatment was reasonable. We did not uphold this part of the complaint. C also complained that the board failed to provide them with a reasonable response to their complaint. C raised a number of issues, including that the board’s response did not address their specific concerns. We considered that the board’s response generally addressed the questions raised by C and we did not uphold this part of the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201900490 as a PDF (24.43 KB) Updated: November 18, 2020

C complained that the board failed to carry out further tests when they became aware of the fact that their partner (A) had polyhydramnios (excess amniotic fluid) during pregnancy before giving birth to their baby (B). B was diagnosed with Noonan Syndrome (a genetic disorder that causes a wide range of features, such as heart abnormalities and unusual facial features) after birth. C considered that, if the board had carried out further tests, this may have led to the detection of Noonan Syndrome prior to the birth of B. We took independent advice from a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist (a doctor who specialises in the female reproductive system, pregnancy and childbirth). We found that the board's staff followed recognised practices when carrying out ultrasound scans and assessing the unborn child. During the 30th week of A's pregnancy, polyhydramnios was first raised as an issue. At that time it was a mild case and no abnormalities were identified with the foetus. By the 36th week of A's pregnancy, polyhydramnios had increased to a moderate case. We found that, whilst polyhydramnios is a feature of Noonan Syndrome, it can be caused by a number of other factors, and no other features of Noonan Syndrome were present. We found that there was no indication for an amniocentesis (a test offered during pregnancy to check if the baby has a genetic or chromosomal condition) to be carried out. If an amniocentesis had been offered, Noonan Syndrome would not have been identified, unless a specific test for this had been carried out. We did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201901919 as a PDF (24.52 KB) Updated: October 21, 2020

Mrs C complained about the care she received at St John's Hospital. In particular, Mrs C was unhappy with delays in the identification, monitoring and diagnosis of an abnormality in her pancreas. Mrs C had a number of hospital admissions and underwent four scans. The scans showed that the abnormality had increased in size. By the time of the final scan, it was identified that the abnormality was likely to be cancer. Mrs C was subsequently diagnosed with cancer and had surgery to have part of her pancreas removed as well as chemotherapy. We took independent advice from a radiologist (a specialist in the analysis of images of the body) and a general surgeon. We found that the management of the abnormality was reasonable until the point of the third scan. The report of this scan identified a definite increase in size of the abnormality, although inconsistently referred to it as unchanged. We considered that a referral should have been made to the surgical team to follow up the abnormality and concluded that the failure to do this was unreasonable. We upheld the complaint. However, we concluded that if follow-up had been appropriately planned, it was unlikely that the course of events would have been different in this case. This is because Mrs C received a scan to investigate abdominal pain around the same time that a scan would have been planned in line with the recommended timescales for follow-up of abnormalities. Mrs C also had concerns about the way the board handled her complaint. We noted that the board had acknowledged and apologised to Mrs C that there had been a significant delay in responding to the complaint. We were critical that the board did not seem to have identified the cause of the delay. We also found that the board had failed to provide updates to Mrs C about the delay. We upheld this complaint.

C, a support and advocacy worker, complained on behalf of their client (B) whose adult child (A) had developed deep vein thrombosis (a blood clot in a vein) and pulmonary embolism (a blocked blood vessel in the lungs) requiring treatment in hospital. Despite receiving blood thinning medication, A developed further pulmonary embolism. A's medication was revised and arrangements were made for A to be seen as an out-patient. A died after returning home following a later review appointment. B questioned the quality of care A had received from the board. We took independent advice from a consultant respiratory physician (a doctor who specialises in treating and managing patients with conditions affecting their lungs). We found that A received a good standard of care both as an in-patient and as an out-patient in line with the relevant guidance and good practice. There was no evidence that A's outcome could have been changed had the board acted differently. We did not, therefore, uphold C's complaint Related reading View Decision Report 201900525 as a PDF (24.28 KB) Updated: September 23, 2020

C complained that the board failed to provide them with reasonable care and treatment regarding their Lyme disease (LD – a disease caused by bacteria). We took independent advice from a consultant in general internal medicine. C raised concerns that they were refused intravenous antibiotics when they understood this was an available treatment option. The evidence in C's medical records suggested a treatment approach was discussed and agreed about this. We took account of the advice we received that it did not appear from the evidence that any of the relevant medical complications of LD, which applied for starting a patient on intravenous antibiotics, had been established in C's case. We, therefore, did not find evidence that the clinical judgement of C's doctor was exercised in an unreasonable manner. Furthermore, the board's actions were consistent with the relevant guidelines when applicable. C also raised concerns about the manner and approach of a doctor. Our investigation did not identify the supporting evidence needed to conclude that unreasonable communication had occurred. However, we found that the time C waited for diagnosis of LD was unreasonable. We also found that there was an unreasonable delay before a referral for a second clinical opinion was actioned and a significant delay before nerve conduction studies were carried out, in particular, given that in C's case, the test results may have altered their clinical management. C also reported difficulties contacting the medical team to obtain the results of their investigations. We noted that the board had acknowledged this and apologised to C. For the reasons outlined above, we found there were elements of C's care and treatment that were unreasonable and we upheld C's complaint.

C complained to the board about the decision to move them to another ward and the manner in which they were discharged while they were a patient at Royal Edinburgh Hospital. The board explained that beds are allocated according to clinical need and, due to extreme pressures on hospitals at that particular time, it was felt appropriate to move C to another ward as they were clinically stable. The board said appropriate referrals were made following C's discharge, however, as C did not return to the ward following an overnight pass, they were unable to complete their assessment for home treatment. We took independent advice from a mental health nurse. We found that it was unavoidable that a patient had to be transferred to another ward due to the pressures on the wards at the time, and that the board followed a reasonable process in selecting C as a suitable candidate. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. However, we found that while appropriate assessment was carried out, the board failed to appropriately manage C's discharge as they did not ensure that Intensive Home Treatment Team supports commenced when C left the hospital. We upheld this aspect of C's complaint.

Mr C complained that he was unreasonably removed from the boards waiting list when he did not attend an appointment. We took independent advice from a dental adviser. We found that it was reasonable to remove Mr C from the waiting list without offering him another appointment in the clinical circumstances. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Mr C also complained that the board did not communicate reasonably with him. We found that the board's letter to Mr C did not inform him that, if he contacted the service within four weeks, he may be offered another appointment. This was contrary to the NHS Lothian Standard Operating Procedures for Waiting Times Management. We also found that there was no written record of Mr C's call to the board. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Lastly, Mr C complained about the way the board handled his complaint. We did not find evidence that the board had handled Mr C's complaint unreasonably. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Following open surgery, Miss C’s abdomen was closed. Miss C was unhappy with the stitching of her abdomen as it had a ‘dog eared’ appearance at one end. Miss C considered that the stitching was inadequate and she should have been given corrective surgery. As the board did not consider that this was necessary at the time, Miss C proceeded to have private surgery to change the appearance of the scar. We took independent advice form a plastic surgeon. We found that the closure of the surgical wound was achieved by an acceptable technique using appropriate materials. We found the stitching was of a reasonable standard. After several months, there was a small ‘dog ear’ at the end of the scar. We found that the scar was immature at this stage and that it was reasonable to state that it should be allowed to heal, rather than performing corrective surgery at that time. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201903853 as a PDF (24.15 KB) Updated: August 19, 2020

C complained about the care and treatment they received from A&E of St John's Hospital. C has a history of painful skin conditions requiring hospitalisation. C presented at A&E and was triaged by a nurse. The nurse carried out an assessment of C’s condition and discussed it with the a doctor. C was referred to the out-of-hours GP service. C said that they should have been examined by a doctor in light of their symptoms and previous history. We took independent advice from a senior emergency nurse practitioner. We found that C’s medical history was considered and observations of their temperature, heart rate and blood oxygen were recorded. The notes did not contain details of the physical examination nor the discussion with the doctor. The out-of-hours GP that C was referred to did not refer them back to the doctor, as they could have done, if they thought the referral was not appropriate. We concluded that C had received a reasonable standard of care and treatment and did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201906037 as a PDF (24.23 KB) Updated: August 19, 2020

Mr C has autistic spectrum disorder (a developmental disability that affects how a person communicates with, and relates to, other people). After attending an advice clinic, Mr C was assessed by a psychologist. He was then referred to a community mental health service to see if they could help him with social skills and managing anxiety. The community mental health service did not consider they could meet Mr C's specific needs; and they explained that he might be able to access support from a charity instead. Mr C complained that after his psychology assessment, he was not referred for care and treatment suitable to his needs. We took independent advice from a psychologist. We found that Mr C was appropriately assessed and referred for help with social skills. We found that the community mental health service gave the referral careful consideration. We also found it was reasonable that they refused it, as the charity was better equipped to meet Mr C's needs. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. Mr C also complained that the board failed to handle his complaint in a reasonable manner. We found that the board did not communicate clearly with Mr C about his complaint, in particular in relation to the scope of their investigation. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

C, an advocate, complained on behalf of their client (A) about the care and treatment A received at St John's Hospital when they attended after becoming unwell with vomiting. A had also been suffering from migraines over the previous few days. C complained that there was inaccurate reporting of the CT angiogram (a specialised scan using x-rays to look at the heart) which resulted in a delay in diagnosing a stroke; there was a delay in performing a lumbar puncture; and there had been a lack of consistent communication with the family. C also complained that A was not treated fairly due to comments made by staff about their previous medical history and that they did not receive assistance with personal care. The board accepted that there was a failing in relation to the provisional report of the CT scan and this would have initiated treatment for A's stroke at that time. The board apologised and said that they would highlight the case at their local learning meeting. The board accepted that there was no documented evidence to support that A was receiving help with personal care, for which they apologised. However, they noted that there were regular attempts to keep A and their family updated on care. We took independent advice from a consultant radiologist (a doctor who specialises in diagnosing and treating disease and injury through the use of medical imaging techniques such as x-rays and other scans), from a consultant in general medicine and from a registered nurse. We found that, while many aspects of the medical care provided were reasonable (including the timing of the lumbar puncture), there was an unreasonable error regarding the provisional CT scan. This meant that there was a delay between the scan being performed and it being correctly reported. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. We considered that A would have received medication, such as aspirin, to thin their blood earlier, but the effect of this is to prevent future strokes rather than im

Mr C complained that the board had not made reasonable decisions around whether to provide plasma exchanges (a procedure which separates your blood into its different parts: red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma. The plasma is removed from the blood and replaced by a plasma substitute) to his wife (Mrs A) and whether to further explore the possibility of thrombectomy (procedure of removing a blood clot from a blood vessel), or reasonably monitor her levels of consciousness during an admission to hospital following a stroke. We found that the board's decisions around plasma exchanges and the possibility of thrombectomy had been reasonable, but that the board had not reasonably monitored Mrs A's levels of consciousness for a period. This meant that there was a delay to the board providing her with specific treatment. Although this treatment had only a small chance of success, we decided that the board's actions had been unreasonable. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Mr C also complained about how the board had responded to his complaint. We found that the board's responses had been reasonable and did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.