SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C complained about the length of time his wife (Mrs A) spent in Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary. He also complained that before giving medication to Mrs A, staff had not asked him which medication Mrs A was taking prior to her admission. Mr C also said that the medication prescribed to Mrs A had a detrimental effect on her, physically and mentally, and that the tests she underwent after her admission were unnecessary. We took independent advice from a consultant geriatrician. The adviser noted that because Mrs A was able to tell staff about her medication, there was no requirement for staff to discuss it further with Mr C. The adviser also found that the admission and the tests subsequently undertaken were appropriate and reasonable. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201507597 as a PDF (10.99 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained to us about the care and treatment provided to his mother (Mrs A) at Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary before her death. Mrs A's GP had referred her to hospital. At that time, she had end stage kidney failure, but did not want dialysis (a form of treatment that replicates many of the kidney's functions) for this. Mrs A died four days later and the cause of death was recorded as pneumonia. It was also recorded at that time that Mrs A had deteriorated despite antibiotics and that her kidney function had worsened. Mr C had subsequently complained to the board about the care provided to Mrs A. We took independent advice on Mr C's complaint from a medical adviser who is a consultant geriatrician. We found that although it would have been better to carry out an x-ray on Mrs A on the night she was admitted rather than waiting until the following morning, this delay did not alter her treatment. It would, however, have given the clinicians and Mrs A's family more information about her condition. We also found that Mrs A had been able to make her own decisions and had expressed strong wishes that she did not wish to be subjected to cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the event of a cardiac arrest. Although the form confirming that she should not be resuscitated had not been countersigned by a senior doctor as required, the senior doctors had recorded their agreement with the decision in the notes. It is difficult balance between very active care to keep patients alive and then switching to palliative care once it is clear they are dying. We found that, overall, the care provided to Mrs A before her death had been reasonable. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201508344 as a PDF (11.46 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr A's mother and partner complained about the care that Mr A received from the medical practice after he visited them with a number of different symptoms including tiredness, sweating and backache. Mr A was later diagnosed with testicular cancer and they felt that doctors has incorrectly attributed his symptoms to his existing long-term condition. They were concerned that there had been a failure to conduct appropriate investigations as a result and that an emergency hospital referral should have been made when Mr A's condition deteriorated. After taking independent advice from a GP, we did not uphold these complaints. We received advice that there was no evidence that doctors had attributed Mr A's symptoms to his existing condition and we found that they had arranged appropriate investigations to determine the cause of his illness. The adviser also considered that the practice had made appropriate timely referrals for Mr A. Related reading View Decision Report 201508808 as a PDF (11.07 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

The mother and partner of Mr A complained about the care and treatment that he received from Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary following a lung biopsy. The biopsy was carried out after a scan indicated the spread of cancer to the lungs and Mr A was later diagnosed with testicular cancer. Mr A's mother and partner were concerned that he did not receive timely treatment following the biopsy. They also felt that Mr A should have been admitted to hospital, rather than being discharged home to await the biopsy results. After taking independent advice on this case from a consultant physician and a consultant urologist we upheld the complaint that Mr A had not received timely treatment. The advice we received was that the pathology team had not been provided with all the relevant clinical information to help them accurately report the primary site of Mr A's cancer. The advisers also both considered that there had been an unreasonable delay in arranging a specific blood test that can highlight testicular cancer. We considered that the delay in arranging this test was unreasonable as earlier scans had pointed towards testicular cancer and clinicians should have been aware of the potential for this diagnosis. The advice we received was also critical that there was not a more proactive approach to Mr A's care following a urology referral and that his case was not discussed with oncology when it became clear that there would be a delay in the biopsy result becoming available. We made a number of recommendations to address these findings. We did not uphold the second complaint regarding the decision to discharge Mr A following his biopsy. The advice we received was that it was clinically safe to discharge Mr A and that the board should have been able to manage his care as an urgent patient without admission being necessary.

Mrs C's mother (Mrs A) was admitted to the Medical Assessment Unit (MAU) at Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary via A&E after showing signs of a stroke. Whilst in hospital, Mrs A suffered a major stroke. Mrs C raised a number of complaints about the board, including that they unreasonably failed to give Mrs A a clot buster rtPA (an injection to break down blood clots) and that nursing staff failed to monitor Mrs A appropriately. We obtained independent medical advice from a consultant physician and a nurse. The medical adviser said that the board unreasonably failed to give Mrs A a clot buster rtPA, although they said that the decision would have been a difficult one and would have had to have been made by a specialist. In addition, the medical adviser said that when Mrs A was in A&E, the board should have carried out a specific risk categorisation using the ABCD2 score (a risk assessment tool designed to improve the prediction of short-term stroke risk after a 'mini stroke'). Had they done so, this would have shown that Mrs A was at very high risk of progression to acute stroke. The medical adviser also said that Mrs A should have been admitted to an acute stroke unit and given a carotid Doppler (a scan to detect a narrowed artery in the neck, which may cause a stroke). She should also have been monitored continuously by experienced staff, rather than being admitted to the MAU. The medical adviser also said that a plan should have been made for Mrs A's care in the event of a deterioration, which should also have been explicit about what to do if new stroke deficits were detected. Both advisers said the nursing staff did not monitor Mrs A appropriately or observe her every two hours, as required. The medical adviser said that the scoring system used by staff to monitor Mrs A (the Glasgow Coma Scale or GCS) was not entirely suitable. The nursing adviser said that not taking Mrs A's vital signs for a period of over five hours was a serious failing. We uphe

Mr C complained about the board following the death of his partner (Mrs A). Mrs A had attended A&E at Galloway Community Hospital with abdominal pain. She was recorded to have a high temperature and fast heart rate. The doctor who examined Mrs A diagnosed her as having a urine infection, and he discharged her with antibiotics. The next day, Mrs A was accompanying a friend to a hospital in another board area when she collapsed. She developed signs of sepsis (blood poisoning), originating in the gall bladder, and despite resuscitation and intensive care, she passed away. In their response to Mr C's complaint, the board accepted that the early signs of sepsis had been missed at Mrs A's initial attendance at A&E and apologised for this. However, Mr C brought his complaint to us as he wanted further assurances that appropriate steps had been taken to avoid similar mistakes in the future. We took independent advice from a medical adviser, who considered Mrs A's initial diagnosis when she attended A&E to be unreasonable based on her symptoms at the time. We also found Mrs A's elevated heart rate and temperature to be of sufficient concern that further investigation should have been warranted and admission to hospital considered. As such, we upheld the complaint. In response to our enquiries, the board provided extensive details of procedural changes and training that had taken place in Galloway Community Hospital to aid in the diagnosis and treatment of sepsis, so we did not consider that any recommendations of this kind were necessary. We did, however, make a recommendation regarding the doctor who assessed Mrs A, and we asked the board to apologise to Mr C.

Ms C complained to us about the system that the medical practice used for reporting on warfarin (a drug used to prevent blood clots) blood tests. Her mother (Mrs A) had been discharged from hospital and a blood test was taken on a Friday. Ms C was told to phone the practice later that day for the result. Ms C did so and was told by a receptionist that the results would not be ready until Monday and that her mother should continue on the same dosage of medication (one tablet daily) in the meantime. On the Monday, the practice phoned Ms C and advised her that her mother's medication should be reduced to one tablet every other day. In the meantime, Mrs A had developed speech problems and had difficulties swallowing, eating and drinking. Ms C felt that the dosage of medication that her mother was taking over the weekend had caused Mrs A's deterioration. We took independent advice from a GP adviser and concluded that whilst the dosage of medication taken over the weekend had not harmed Mrs A (and was not the cause of her deterioration), the system of reporting warfarin blood test results was not entirely in accordance with local guidelines and that it was not clear whether the receptionist had spoken to Ms C on the instructions of a clinician. We upheld the complaint.

Mr A, who had a history of type 1 diabetes, chronic kidney disease and who had had a leg amputated, was admitted to Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary in November 2013. He was complaining of chest pain, a shortage of breath and had an ulcerated toe. After admission, Mr A continued to be unwell and a week later, he had a cardiac arrest and died. His sister (Mrs C) complained that board staff failed to do enough for him or to recognise that he was a very sick patient. She also complained about the way in which her formal complaint was subsequently handled. We took independent advice from a consultant geriatrician with an accreditation in general medicine and from a senior nurse. We found that Mr A's condition was a complex one and that doctors had treated him reasonably in terms of his symptoms and there were no reasonable precautions that could have been taken which could have prevented his death with certainty. We also found that the nursing care given to Mr A had been reasonable, although we identified some failure and shortcomings in record-keeping. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints about care and treatment. However, we found that Mrs C's complaint had been dealt with badly. It did not initially progress through the complaints process and was beset by delay and confusion. Even when the board identified that this had happened, Mrs C was sent an inadequate reply. For these reasons, we upheld this part of the complaint.

Over a period of time, Ms C began to experience constant bloating, was unable to lose weight and was concerned about other symptoms. She attended her GP, who examined her stomach and said there was excess fluid but he was not concerned. The GP's note of this consultation said that Ms C was doing well with her diet, had lost three stone, but felt she was putting weight on despite not changing anything. He arranged routine blood tests which came back normal. Ms C's symptoms got worse. A few weeks later she attended a different GP. The GP found what she thought was a cyst on Ms C's left ovary and a scan confirmed this. Surgery removed a very large (30 centimetres by 24 centimetres) cyst. Ms C complained that the care and treatment she received from the first GP was inadequate. We sought independent advice from a GP adviser. The adviser considered the relevant General Medical Council (GMC), Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. They concluded that the note of the appointment was not of a reasonable standard as it was sparse in detail, showed evidence of only a very limited recorded history, and no evidence of a medical examination. The adviser explained that Ms C's symptoms required examination and follow-up, neither of which was recorded. They also considered that the note did not show evidence of good communication or working in partnership with patients so it was not of a reasonable standard. The adviser explained that, in line with SIGN and NICE guidance on the investigations needed to exclude ovarian cancer, Ms C should have had a particular blood test and a scan. Therefore, we found that reasonable investigations were not carried out. We upheld Ms C's complaint and made several recommendations.

Mr C complained to the board about the care and treatment he received from a prison health centre for on-going back pain. He was unhappy that the doctor had not done enough to manage his pain or deal with the cause of it. The pain relief medication and physiotherapy were not helping, and he wanted another back operation. We took independent advice from a GP adviser. We found that the doctor had followed Scottish guidance on the management of back pain, and prescribing painkillers and physiotherapy was appropriate given his symptoms. When Mr C reported that his pain was not improving with these measures, the doctor then referred him for surgical review. We concluded that the care and treatment was reasonable. Related reading View Decision Report 201500679 as a PDF (10.94 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Miss C, an advocacy worker, complained on behalf of Mr and Mrs A about the care and treatment their late daughter (Miss A) received during an admission to Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary. Miss A, who was severely disabled, was admitted with breathing and swallowing difficulties, but she became increasingly unwell and died two weeks later. Mr and Mrs A complained about various aspects of her medical and nursing care. They also complained that staff failed to reasonably communicate with them, and they raised concerns about the way in which the board handled their complaint. We took independent advice from a nursing adviser and one of our medical advisers, who is a consultant physician. We were advised that a reasonable standard of medical care was provided to Miss A and that her death could not have been prevented. We, therefore, did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. However, we noted that one of the recorded causes of death was not appropriate, which the board had already acknowledged, and we asked them to bring this to the attention of the relevant member of staff. We considered that most of the nursing care provided to Miss A was also of a reasonable standard, but we identified a failure in respect of her bowel management. Miss A required her bowels to be manually evacuated and this task unreasonably continued to fall to Mr and Mrs A during her admission. The board's manual evacuation, or digital removal of faeces (DRF), policy was not fit for purpose and staff failed to seek specialist advice to allow them to carry out this task. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. We also found deficiencies in the recorded level of communication between staff and Mr and Mrs A. In particular, we noted that medical staff did not have a sensitive discussion with them regarding the fact that Miss A was approaching the end of her life. This lack of discussion regarding the severity of the situation left them to attribute the deterioration of her health to

Mr C complained about his treatment when he was admitted to Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary for bowel surgery. He had been diagnosed with bowel cancer and underwent surgery to remove the right side of his colon. He became unwell following surgery, experiencing severe pain, and a scan three days later revealed a leak in the join in his bowel. He was taken back to theatre the same day for corrective surgery. He complained about the delay in diagnosing the complication arising from the initial surgery. He also raised concerns that the potential for this complication had not been explained to him in advance and that his wife was not informed of the severity of his condition prior to the corrective surgery. We took independent clinical advice from a consultant colorectal surgeon who advised us that the risk of a leak was recorded on the consent form that Mr C had signed, thus suggesting that it had been discussed with him. It was our adviser's view, however, that the possibility of a leak should have been considered more closely and a scan arranged a day earlier. We, therefore, concluded that there was an avoidable delay in identifying the leak and carrying out the corrective surgery. Our adviser told us that earlier surgery would not have altered the clinical outcome, however, we noted that it would have minimised the distress caused to Mr C and his wife. We upheld the complaint. The board had already accepted that they should have given more information to Mr C's wife regarding his condition. They had apologised for this and discussed it with senior staff. However, they had not accepted that there was a delay in identifying the leak and we recommended that our findings in this regard be fed back to medical staff.

Mr C was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2013. A scan showed that the disease also caused obstruction to the right ureter (the tube draining from the kidney into the bladder). Furthermore, it showed inflammation of his lower bowel, and tests were performed in November 2013 and July 2014 to confirm a diagnosis of Crohn's disease (a long-term condition that causes inflammation of the lining of the digestive system). In the meantime, in September 2013, Mr C had a stent (drain) inserted into his kidney to overcome the effects of the blockage. His treatment was carried out at Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary. Mr C complained about the care and treatment he received from the board. He complained that he was not told formally about the results of his test in November 2013; he was often kept waiting at appointments or for procedures without explanation; he received little treatment for his prostate and bladder problems; he was not given a timely diagnosis of Crohn's disease; administrative arrangements for his discharge from hospital in April 2014 were unreasonable; the board failed to reply to a letter from his GP; and that they failed to handle his complaint reasonably. We investigated the complaint and took independent advice from consultants in urology (a speciality in medicine that deals with problems of the urinary system and the male reproductive system) and in general and colorectal surgery, and also from a senior nursing professional. We found evidence that Mr C's results had been discussed with him, although there were some shortcomings in communication with him and we made a recommendation to address this. We also found that he had been given an explanation for the delays (unexpected emergencies or appointments running over). We found that his urological treatment had all been appropriate but that some of the communication had been poor. We found that Mr C's diagnosis of Crohn's disease had been given after results and biopsies were known and, while there

Mrs C complained about one of her mother (Mrs A)'s GPs. Mrs C said the GP should have sent Mrs A to hospital after seeing her at a home visit. Several days later another GP admitted Mrs A to hospital, where she died. We looked at Mrs A's medical notes and the GP's file on Mrs C's complaint. We also took independent advice from one of our GP advisers. We found that the GP provided appropriate treatment to Mrs A at the home visit, and there were no indications at the visit that Mrs A should have been admitted to hospital as an emergency. We also found that, in the circumstances, Mrs A's deterioration several days later could not have been foreseen at the home visit. We concluded that the care provided to Mrs A at the home visit was reasonable in the circumstances, and that the GP did not unreasonably fail to send Mrs A to hospital on that day. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201407551 as a PDF (10.99 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C had been admitted to Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary for pelvic floor repair, as she had a prolapse of the wall between her vagina and rectum. She said that she was only told that she might need a vaginal hysterectomy (surgery to remove the womb through the vagina) on the morning that the surgery was to be carried out. She then had a vaginal hysterectomy later that day. Mrs C complained about the action taken in relation to consent for the procedure. We took independent advice from one of our medical advisers, who is an experienced consultant gynaecologist. We found that it was unreasonable that Mrs C was only told about the possibility of such a significant procedure on the day of the surgery and that she was given little time to consider this. We considered that Mrs C should have been told about the possibility that she needed a vaginal hysterectomy at an earlier stage, and we upheld this aspect of her complaint. Mrs C also complained about the procedure that was carried out. Although we had concerns about the consent process and considered that Mrs C should have been told about the possibility of a vaginal hysterectomy earlier, we found that it had been appropriate for this to be carried out. Mrs C also complained about the pain relief she had received after the operation. We found that the pain relief had been reasonable. Finally, she complained that the standard of medical and nursing record-keeping was unreasonable. Although there were some missing/incorrect dates and times in the documentation, we found that the notes were of an acceptable standard. Consequently, we did not uphold these aspects of her complaint.

Mr C has a history of back problems. He complained that he was only given an x-ray for his back pain and had to arrange for a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan privately because a clinician at Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary refused him one. Unlike an ordinary x-ray, MRI shows the soft structures in the spine such as disc, nerves, ligaments and muscles. In response to the complaint, the board said that Mr C had an increase in back pain with no new symptoms and there was no indication that an MRI scan would be needed in accordance with national guidance on the early management of persistent non-specific low back pain. We took independent advice from our medical adviser who said that Mr C's presentation was not straightforward and did not properly fit with the diagnosis of non-specific low back pain or any existing spinal guideline. The medical advice we received was that Mr C should have been assessed for the possibility of spinal cord compression and either have had an MRI scan or his case discussed with a spine specialist given he had a pre-existing deformity of his spine and had several red flags (symptoms that are likely to indicate a particular serious illness). We only found records to show that an orthopaedic specialist had interpreted the x-ray but no evidence to show that the specialist was aware of the red flags and the pre-existing deformity.

Mrs C's mother (Mrs A) was admitted to Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary following a fall at home. She had previously been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease and was noted to be confused upon admission. Staff found no evidence of bone fractures, but kept Mrs A in hospital until her mobility improved. A few days following her admission, Mrs A began vomiting. Medical staff suspected a bleed in her stomach and proposed an endoscopy (a camera inserted into the stomach to find the source of the bleed). Mrs A was fasted for the procedure, but it was delayed on several occasions due to a lack of patient consent. Mrs C complained that her mother was fasted unnecessarily on a number of occasions in preparation for the procedure. She noted that staff had been informed that she had power of attorney for her mother (a legal document appointing someone to act or make decisions for another person) and complained that she was not asked to provide consent for the procedure. She also complained about Mrs A's hygiene, the monitoring of her fluid intake and poor communication from staff. We were critical of the board's handling of the consent for Mrs A's procedure. There are clear guidelines for obtaining consent from patients who lack capacity to discuss their own treatment and these were not followed. The record-keeping in Mrs A's case was very poor and suggested a lack of consultant review over a number of days during her admission. We were critical of this, and the lack of discussions with Mrs C regarding Mrs A's treatment plan. We also found the staff's communication to be poor with no proactive plan to discuss Mrs A's care with Mrs C. This led to impromptu discussions in open corridors which we found to be inappropriate.

Ms C had cognitive and communication problems. Following poor experiences with her GP practice, she asked to be deregistered. However, she subsequently found it difficult to register with a new practice. Before registering with a new GP, Ms C sought reassurance that they would make reasonable adjustments in light of her disabilities to allow her to access the services she required. On each occasion, the local GP practices asked her to register first so that her needs could be assessed and adjustments put in place. Ms C was reluctant to do so and asked the board for help. Whilst the board provided details of local practices, they also advised that she should register first to allow a needs assessment. Ms C complained that the board did not make reasonable adjustments to help her access services in her community. She also complained about their handling of her correspondence and that they labelled her a vexatious complainant. We were satisfied that the board acted reasonably by signposting Ms C to local GP practices and advising her to register. We found that equalities legislation requires practices to make such adjustments as are necessary, reassuring patients that adaptations will be made to allow them to access services. We were critical of the board's handling of Ms C's correspondence, so we upheld this aspect of her complaint. Her correspondence was treated as a complaint but was not progressed through the formal complaints process. However, we did not find that Ms C had been categorised as a vexatious complainant.

Mr C complained about the medication he was prescribed at Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary. He said the side effects were not explained to him properly and that his medication had caused him to suffer problems with his lungs. As part of our investigation, we took independent medical advice from one of our advisers. He explained that not discussing the medication’s side effects would have been unreasonable and that such discussions should ideally be noted in the medical records. Our adviser was unable to determine the extent of any such discussions from Mr C’s medical records and, although he accepted it was possible that it may have caused Mr C’s subsequent health problems, he said it was a low probability. However, he said the actual decision to have prescribed the medication was not, of itself, unreasonable. In light of the advice we received, we could not absolutely say Mr C’s medication caused his health problems or the decision to have prescribed it was unreasonable and so we did not uphold his complaint. We did, however, have reservations about the extent of the discussions about its possible side effects and the extent of the assessment that was done for Mr C and so we made three recommendations.

Mr C complained to us that his medical practice had failed to diagnose his heart condition. We took independent advice on this complaint from one of our medical advisers and found that there was no evidence in the medical notes that indicated that the practice had failed to follow up on the symptoms Mr C had reported. There were no recorded symptoms of possible heart problems and so we did not uphold the complaint. Mr C then wrote to us to complain that some of his consultations with the practice had not been recorded accurately. In view of this, we decided to reopen the case to investigate his complaint that his medical records were inaccurate. We obtained a full historical print out of Mr C's computer record from the practice and considered this along with the information he provided to us. However, there was no evidence that the practice had altered or deleted any of the records of the consultations that he had referred to. Our adviser also considered that the GPs had acted reasonably in summarising the consultations in the computer records. In view of all of this, we did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201402052 as a PDF (11.07 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Early in 2013, Mr C was seen at Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary as he had been experiencing throat discomfort. The consultant he saw said that no abnormality had been revealed and he discharged him with an assurance that all was well. However, Mr C's throat problems continued and, in July 2013, he found a lump on the side of his neck. His GP referred him urgently to hospital where, on examination, he was found to have throat cancer requiring urgent surgery. Mr C complained to the board who acknowledged that the consultant should have had greater suspicion about Mr C's symptoms and done a more extensive examination. These findings were discussed with the consultant but he remained of the view that it had been appropriate not to diagnose Mr C as having throat cancer. Mr C complained to us. We investigated and took independent advice from a consultant surgeon who specialised in ear, nose and throat surgery. Our investigation confirmed the board's own findings about Mr C's complaint that the consultant did not show enough suspicion about his symptoms given current accepted risk factors; did not examine him appropriately; and that furthermore, as Mr C's symptoms were untypical of the diagnosis initially given, Mr C should not have been discharged without follow-up. Later, Mr C was not seen within an appropriate timescale as dictated by the urgent GP referral. Mr C also complained about the board's delay in dealing with his complaints on this matter and we found that this had been the case and that he had not been kept fully updated. In light of this, we also upheld this complaint.

Mrs C complained about a number of aspects of the care and treatment she received in A&E at Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary. These included concerns about the examinations and investigations carried out and whether doctors should have identified that she had a pulmonary embolism or embolus (a blockage of the main artery of the lung or one of its branches by a substance that has travelled from elsewhere in the body through the bloodstream), which was discovered when she attended hospital again ten days later. We obtained independent medical advice on the case from a consultant in general medicine. Our adviser explained that the level of investigation during Mrs C's attendance at A&E was not sufficiently detailed to justify the exclusion of the diagnosis of pulmonary embolus and that in this regard, Mrs C's care fell below the level that she could have expected. The adviser said it was not possible to say that Mrs C's pulmonary embolus would definitely have been diagnosed if more care had been taken during her attendance at hospital. However, he said it was much more likely to have been diagnosed if doctors had carried out a sufficiently detailed assessment and investigation. The adviser also explained that, overall, he considered it likely that Mrs C's pulmonary embolus was present when she first went to A&E, and should have been considered as a diagnosis at that time.

Mrs C complained that her physiotherapist had not referred her for an MRI scan (a scan used to diagnose conditions that affect organs, tissue and bone). As the physiotherapist had not done this, Mrs C arranged one privately, which did not reveal any abnormalities. Mrs C then sought to recover the cost of her private MRI scan from the board. As part of our investigation we took independent advice from one of our medical advisers. She said the physiotherapist's decision to refer Mrs C to the pain clinic and not for an MRI scan was reasonable. This was because the notes did not indicate that Mrs C's condition required a referral for an MRI scan, in line with the relevant guidance. Although we took Mrs C's concerns into account, our role was to determine the reasonableness of the care and treatment she received. In light of the clear advice we received that the board had acted reasonably and in line with the appropriate guidance, we did not uphold Mrs C's first complaint. Mrs C was also unhappy at the time the board took to respond to her complaint. Mrs C had contacted them over a period of months and the paperwork showed they had failed to meet their timescales or keep her updated. We upheld this complaint and made two recommendations.

Miss C, who is an advocate, complained on behalf of her client (Mrs A) about the nursing and medical care provided to Mrs A's late husband (Mr A) at Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary after he was admitted for a below-knee amputation. Mrs A was concerned that staff had not been monitoring Mr A's urine output or identified that fluid had been building up in his lungs. Mrs A felt that this caused Mr A to suffer a heart attack. After Mr A was discharged from hospital, Miss C complained to the board, however, there was a significant delay in the response being provided, by which time Mr A had died suddenly. We took independent advice from two medical advisers, one a nurse and the other a consultant nephrologist (specialising in kidneys). We found that Mr A had a medical history of diabetes with multiple complications that had caused kidney damage in the past. Given this history, the medical complications he suffered (including a deterioration in kidney function, fluid collecting in the lungs, and a heart attack) were not unexpected. We did not find that the complications were a result of poor care and treatment, and so we did not uphold the complaint about medical care. However, there was no clear evidence to show that Mr A had been advised about the possible risk of cardiac problems given his medical history and we drew this to the board's attention. We also found that the nursing staff had not properly completed the fluid balance charts on a number of occasions, albeit the medical staff had carried out daily examinations for signs of fluid accumulation and managed the fluids and Mr A's medication appropriately. Therefore, we upheld Miss C's complaint about the nursing care Mr A received. We could not say for certain what had actually caused the heart attack but we made recommendations to address the failings in record-keeping. In relation to complaints handling, the board accepted that they had delayed unreasonably in responding to the complaint. We were

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment provided to her daughter (Miss A) by a medical practice. Miss A has a long-term health condition and needs multivitamins daily. Mrs C said that, on more than one occasion, GPs at the practice wrongly prescribed a multivitamin containing a high dose of vitamin A, which was potentially toxic to Miss A. Mrs C said that she and the dietician noticed the error, not the GPs, and she complained to the board, who responded on behalf of the practice. Mrs C was not satisfied with the board's response. After taking independent advice from one of our medical advisers, we were satisfied that the practice took Mrs C's complaint seriously, conducted a full and honest investigation, including a significant event analysis, and proposed reasonable actions to prevent a similar situation in the future. There had clearly been a mis-prescription of Miss A's multivitamins which affected a period of roughly six months, which the practice accepted. We found that this was caused by poor communication between the practice and other healthcare staff involved in Miss A's care. We also found that the practice operated two different methods of prescription, which meant that a GP dealing with Miss A for the first time could easily miss details of previous prescriptions which had not been entered on the practice system. We were also critical that, when it was established early on that Miss A's prescribed multivitamin was not listed on that system, no action was taken to have the system updated or to forewarn other GPs in the practice. We upheld Mrs C's complaint and made recommendations to address the failings identified. Mrs C also complained about the handling of her complaint, but we found that it was investigated thoroughly and that the board’s response was reasonable.