SPSO Individual Decisions

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 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.

Ms C complained about the decision of staff at the Royal Hospital for Sick Children to assess that two referral letters from her child's (Child A) GP should be graded as routine rather than urgent. Child A had ankyloglossia (tongue-tie); this occurs where the strip of skin connecting the baby's tongue to the bottom of their mouth is shorter than usual which affected their ability to feed. As the board had added Child A to the routine waiting list, Ms C paid for the procedure to be completed on a private basis, and Child A immediately improved their feeding ability. Ms C believed that the GP referral letters should have been graded as urgent which would have allowed the procedure to be carried out sooner. We took independent advice from a consultant paediatrician (consultant specialising in the medical care of children). We found that as Child A was able to feed using a bottle and was gaining weight, there was no need to classify the referral letters as urgent; this was in line with board policy. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201908741 as a PDF (24.25 KB) Updated: July 22, 2020

C underwent specialist reconstructive surgery. After the surgery, C experienced urinary incontinence. C said that they had believed the surgery would be of a routine nature and complained that they had not been not provided with adequate information about it; in particular, that a possible side effect was incontinence. We took independent advice from a urology adviser (a doctor who specialises in the male and female urinary tract, and the male reproductive organs). We found that the board failed to provide adequate information to C about the planned procedure prior to obtaining their consent and, therefore, we upheld this complaint. C also complained about the delay in the surgery being carried out. The board accepted that there was a delay in C accessing treatment and explained that the delay reflected the waiting list issues the department had at the time. We found that there was an unreasonable delay in C's planned procedure being carried out. We upheld this complaint. C complained that the board failed to provide them with reasonable care and treatment. C had concerns about how the board managed their place on the waiting list for the planned procedure and about the aftercare provided. The board acknowledged that there was a breakdown in communication which resulted in C having to arrange aftercare themselves. However, they said that their waiting list was managed appropriately. We found that there was nothing to suggest that C's place on the board's waiting list was managed inappropriately. However, we upheld the complaint on the basis of the breakdown in communication which resulted in C arranging aftercare treatment themselves. Finally, C complained that the board failed to handle their complaint reasonably. The board acknowledged that there had been a delay in responding to C's complaint and that they had not communicated about the delay with C. We found that the board did not respond to C's complaint within expected timescales or communicate wi

Mrs C complained that the reporting of x-rays taken of her knees was unreasonable. Mrs C was referred by her GP for an x-ray as she had been suffering from pain in her knees for over a year and her GP thought that she might be experiencing the onset of arthritis (a disease causing painful inflammation and stiffness of the joints) . Knee x-rays were carried out and Mrs C's GP later advised her that the x-rays showed no signs of arthritis. However, Mrs C subsequently attended a private hospital and was advised that x-rays did show early onset arthritis and swelling in both knees. Mrs C stated that the x-rays from the board had not been looked at properly. We took independent advice from a consultant radiologist (a specialist in diagnosing and treating disease and injury through the use of medical imaging techniques such as x-rays and other scans). We found no evidence that the reporting of Mrs C's knee x-rays had not been reasonable but the images taken allowed for different interpretations and did not give a clear enough picture to result in a definite arthritis diagnosis. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201810248 as a PDF (24.3 KB) Updated: June 17, 2020

Ms C complained that the total knee replacement surgery she had undergone had not been carried out appropriately. We took independent advice from a consultant orthopaedic surgeon (a specialist in the treatment of diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system). The board were unable to locate the operation note for the surgery. However, we found that the evidence that was available indicated that it was likely there had been a technical error in the operation in that too much bone was resected (removed). However, without the operation note, it was not possible to state this categorically. We also found that Ms C had been poorly consented for the operation. There was little evidence that she had been informed of the risks of surgery. The risks of ongoing pain, dissatisfaction and the fact that revision might be necessary were not specifically recorded. It was also unreasonable that the operation note was not available. Given this, we upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint. Ms C also complained that the board's response to her complaint was unreasonable. We found that the board's response had been inaccurate about who carried out the operation. There was also a delay in responding to the complaint and no evidence that the board agreed revised time limits with Ms C for responding. Therefore, we also upheld this aspect of the complaint.

C complained on behalf of their sibling (A) who is a Type 1 diabetic. A was admitted to hospital twice following hypoglycaemic (low blood sugar) episodes. The second admission took place via A&E. The discharge letter for A's second admission described A as being 'anorexic' (an eating disorder where individuals feel a need to keep their weight as low as possible) and having 'learning difficulties'. A, and A's family, complained about the decisions taken to discharge A, about the treatment A received at A&E, that the board did not perform tests or investigate A's condition during A's second admission and about the descriptions of A included in the discharge letter. We took independent advice from an appropriately qualified adviser. We found that that the decisions to discharge A had been reasonable, that A had been provided reasonable treatment within A&E, that A's management during the second admission had been reasonable and that the board's inclusion of the descriptions A took issue with in the second discharge letter were reasonable. We did not uphold the complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201806843 as a PDF (24.22 KB) Updated: June 17, 2020

Mr C complained about the clinical care and treatment provided to his late mother (Mrs A). Mr C complained that Mrs A had been incorrectly diagnosed with dementia and that the care and treatment Mrs A received during her admission to the Western General Hospital (WGH) and by the community mental health team (CMHT) prior to her death was unreasonable. We took independent advice from a consultant psychiatrist and a consultant geriatrician (a specialist in medicine of the elderly). We were concerned that the board had failed to follow their retention and destruction policy and that some of Mrs A's medical records had not been retained in line with that policy and were therefore not available during the investigation of the complaint. However, from the available evidence, we found that the diagnosis of dementia was questionable and that there had been a failure to review this diagnosis as new information emerged. Therefore, we upheld this complaint. In relation to the clinical care and treatment given to Mrs A during her admissions to the WGH, while we found that aspects of the care and treatment given to Mrs A was reasonable, there had been a number of failings and we upheld the complaint. However, we noted that the board had carried out a significant adverse review event and had made a number of recommendations. In relation to the community mental health care given to Mrs A, we were unable to address all the issues raised by Mr C due to the absence of relevant medical records. However, based on the available evidence we found that there had been a lack of coordination and communication between the various mental health teams and as a result, we upheld the complaint.

Miss C complained about the care and treatment she received at A&E at Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh (RIE) and when she attended for an MRI scan. She also complained about the clinical and nursing care and treatment provided during a number of admissions to the RIE. We took independent advice from a consultant in emergency medicine in relation to Miss C's attendance at A&E. We found that the care and treatment was reasonable, in particular, that Miss C was seen by an emergency medicine doctor who obtained a thorough history and conducted a comprehensive examination; that the possibility of a pituitary (a small gland in the brain that makes hormones) tumour was considered and the most appropriate radiological imaging plan was discussed with a radiologist; that arrangements were made for an emergency out-patient MRI scan which was carried out within the timeframe for an urgent MRI scan. We took independent advice from a consultant radiologist in relation to the care and treatment given to Miss C when she attended for an MRI scan. We found no evidence that the care and treatment was unreasonable and, therefore, we did not uphold the complaint. In relation to the clinical care and treatment given to Miss C when she was admitted to the RIE on three occasions, we took independent advice from a consultant surgeon. We found that the clinical care and treatment given to Miss C during these admissions was reasonable and we did not uphold these complaints. Finally, we took independent advice from a nursing adviser in relation to the nursing aspects of the care given to Miss C during two of her admissions to the RIE. We found failings in relation to Miss C's discharge medication on one occasion and we upheld this aspect of her complaint. The board accepted these failings and had taken action which we considered was reasonable. Therefore, we made no further recommendations. We found no failings in relation to the nursing care and treatment given to Miss C during the second

C complained on behalf of their late parent (A) regarding nursing and medical care and treatment provided to A during an admission to the Western General Hospital. We took independent advice from a nurse and from a consultant in general medicine and care of the elderly. With regard to the concerns about nursing care, we found that there were failures in relation to: risk assessment completion and accuracy personal care pressure sore prevention and management wound care continence management encouraging mobilisation person-centred care planning We upheld this aspect of C's complaint. With regard to medical treatment, we found that there was an unreasonable delay in providing antibiotics for A's urinary tract infection. However, we noted that the board had acknowledged and apologised for this failing previously. We also found that A was kept on the medical assessment unit for the entire admission of over a week, despite this unit being for maximum stays of 48 hours. Given these failings, we upheld this aspect of C's complaint. C further complained that A had a dental appointment at another hospital in the area whilst they were an in-patient, and no arrangements were made to assist A to attend this or to arrange for them to be seen by their dentist at the Western General Hospital. The board had previously acknowledged that they should have arranged for transport and for a member of staff to attend the appointment with A, apologised, and offered to compensate C for the cost of transport. We upheld this aspect of C's complaint. Finally, C complained that the board failed to identify that they were making a formal complaint. We found that C's complaints were not appropriately identified and responded to in line with the Model Complaint Handling Procedure and the board had accepted this. We therefore upheld this aspect of C's complaint.

Mr C, who had a previous history of repeated sinus infections, attended the day surgery unit at St John's Hospital for planned septoplasty surgery (corrective nose surgery). He was prepared for surgery by a nurse but Mr C was then reviewed by a doctor who decided that surgery was not required at that time and that Mr C could be discharged home with nasal capsules and would be reviewed at a later date. Mr C said that it was unreasonable that the doctor had overruled a previous consultant, who deemed that surgery was required, and that he was prescribed capsules which had not been effective in the past. We took independent advice from an ear, nose and throat surgeon. We found that it is not unusual for planned surgery to be cancelled on the day of surgery. Clinicians who may have not seen the patient previously routinely review the symptoms reported and may determine that the surgery is cancelled or that alternative surgery should proceed instead. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201904902 as a PDF (24.21 KB) Updated: June 17, 2020

Miss C attended the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh A&E having cut her lower right leg. The wound was treated with wound closure strips and a dry dressing. Miss C complained that it was not appropriate to treat her wound with strips and that they should have been sutured as she developed an infection and required further treatment. The board explained that wounds on the lower leg take longer to heal, are more prone to infection and it is unlikely suturing would have resulted in a different outcome. We took independent advice from a medical adviser. We found that the use of wound closure strips can be as effective as sutures in cuts. There was no evidence to suggest that the treatment provided was unreasonable and it would not be possible to determine whether the wound would not have become infected if it had been stitched. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201904131 as a PDF (24.15 KB) Updated: June 17, 2020

Mr C complained on behalf of his wife (Mrs A) about the care and treatment she received at Western General Hospital. Mrs A was admitted to the surgical assessment unit in the evening with a serious bowel condition. She experienced severe pain in the overnight period whilst she waited to receive surgery. The following morning surgery was successfully performed. Mrs A remained critically unwell for a number of weeks following the procedure. In response to Mr C's complaint, the board acknowledged that better care could have been provided overnight and the operation should have been performed sooner. Mr C remained concerned about what happened and brought his complaint to us. We took independent advice from a colorectal surgeon (a surgeon who specialises in conditions in the colon, rectum or anus), a consultant radiologist (a doctor who specialises in diagnosing and treating disease and injury through the use of medical imaging techniques) and a registered nurse. We identified a number of issues with the care and treatment provided to Mrs A in the overnight period. In particular, we found that the CT scan performed was not reported accurately as it failed to mention the radiological evidence of mesenteric ischemia (a serious condition involving sudden interruption of the blood supply to a segment of the small intestine). We also found that the medical review and nursing monitoring in the period under consideration were unreasonable, and we noted issues with record-keeping. We also found that nursing and medical staff had failed to escalate matters to senior medical staff when this would have been appropriate. Finally, and in line with the board's findings, we found that there was an unreasonable delay in transferring Mrs A to theatre for emergency surgery. We considered that earlier surgery would not have impacted on the extent of surgery required, but might have mitigated the severity of Mrs A's critical illness. We upheld Mr C's complaint and made a number

Mr C complained about the treatment he received at St John's Hospital. He said that his GP had been treating him for a suspected urinary tract infection and referred him to hospital. Initially staff felt that he had a viral infection, but subsequent investigations found that he had a prostatic abscess (accumulation of pus within the prostate gland) and had also developed staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (a bacterial infection). Mr C felt that there had been an undue delay in reaching an accurate diagnosis. We took independent professional advice from a consultant physician. We found that staff had performed a number of investigations to establish the cause of Mr C's symptoms and that it was not initially unreasonable to have diagnosed him as suffering from a viral illness. His temperature fluctuated and appropriate antibiotics were administered at an early stage. The staff also arranged further appropriate investigations in case there was a danger of Mr C losing his sight or requiring heart surgery. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201902664 as a PDF (24.26 KB) Updated: March 18, 2020

Mr C complained about the change in the way his medication was administered at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh. In the past, Mr C received IV morphine (injection into a vein) but had now been changed to subcutaneous morphine (injection under the skin). Mr C believed that the change meant he was in pain for a longer period of time and that it was not as effective. He believed that the decision to change the method of administration of the morphine was unreasonable. We took independent medical advice from a clinician and found that the board had implemented a new Recurring Pain Pathway which included guidance in appropriate cases that morphine should be given subcutaneously (under the skin). This would have the effect of a slower absorption with fewer side effects. We also found that the board staff had explained the rationale for the change to Mr C in a sensitive manner taking into account his other health issues. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201901747 as a PDF (24.2 KB) Updated: March 18, 2020

Miss C complained about the care and treatment she received following elective abdominal surgery. When Miss C awoke following the surgery, she had considerable pain in her leg. She was given pain medication but her leg became significantly worse the next day. Compartment syndrome (when pressure rises in a compartment bordered by a facial covering because of a reduction in the blood flow to the muscle) was suspected and later diagnosed. Miss C underwent surgery but suffered outer muscle loss on her left leg. Miss C complained that there had been a delay in diagnosing compartment syndrome in light of her symptoms. She also complained that the board failed to provide proper treatment because of this delay. Finally, Miss C complained about how the board handled her complaint. We took independent advice from a surgeon. We found that there had been an unreasonable delay in diagnosing compartment syndrome. Specifically, the signs and symptoms Miss C experienced should have led to an earlier orthopaedic consultant (specialist in the treatment of diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system) review and diagnosis of compartment syndrome. In light of this, we upheld this aspect of the complaint. In respect of Miss C's second complaint, we considered that her symptoms were well-monitored and recorded. We considered the failing to be in the interpretation of the clinical observations. Outside of this failure, we considered Miss C's management to be good and as expected following significant surgery. Once compartment syndrome was diagnosed, we found the care and treatment to be reasonable. We concluded that the failing had been the unreasonable delay in diagnosing compartment syndrome and not in the treatment provided. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. Finally, we concluded that it took an unreasonable length of time for the board to carry out their stage 2 complaint investigation and that Miss C was not appropriately updated about t

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment provided to her late husband (Mr A) who had a rare and aggressive form of bladder cancer. Mr A received care and treatment at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh and the Western General Hospital. We took independent advice from urology (specialism that deals with the male and female urinary tract, and the male reproductive organs), oncology (cancer) and general surgery advisers. We found that the time taken to investigate and begin treatment for Mr A's bladder cancer was reasonable and in accordance with the Scottish Government's cancer waiting time targets. We also found that chemotherapy treatment commenced within a reasonable timescale. The level of information about treatment options, including their risks and benefits, provided to Mr A was also reasonable. This included sufficient information about the specific risk of pulmonary embolism (a clot in the blood vessel that transports blood from the heart to the lungs), a complication Mr A subsequently experienced. In the context of Mr A's rapid deterioration, the level of planning for end of life care was reasonable. When Mr A subsequently experienced bowel obstruction, it was reasonable that he was treated on a surgical ward. While Mr A's pain was difficult to manage, the attempts by the clinical team were reasonable, as was the aim to discharge Mr A home. When Mr A's condition deteriorated, he was transferred to a hospice without unreasonable delay. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201806790 as a PDF (24.5 KB) Updated: March 18, 2020

Ms C complained about the care and treatment she received when she was admitted to A&E at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh. In particular, that she had been catheterised without her consent and against her will. She also complained that unnecessary restraint had been used. We took independent advice from a consultant in emergency medicine. We found that the care and treatment given to Ms A was reasonable, and that the history, examination and investigations had been appropriate and reasonable. In particular, we found that this had been a potentially life threatening emergency and the decision to insert a catheter had been reasonable. We considered that it was extremely unlikely that Ms C would, at that time, have had the capacity to consent to medical treatment. As such, an adult with incapacity assessment had been completed before the decision to insert the catheter had been made. We also found there was no evidence in the medical records that unnecessary constraint had been used. We did not uphold Ms C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201803475 as a PDF (24.19 KB) Updated: March 18, 2020

Ms C complained about the nursing care she received at St John's Hospital during two separate admissions. Ms C had a complex medical history and was assessed by a range of clinical professionals during each admission. Ms C was unhappy with the way nurses behaved towards her and communicated with her. We took independent advice from a registered nurse. We considered Ms C's account, staff statements and the clinical records available. Based on the evidence available, we were unable to establish that there had been failings in the way nursing staff behaved towards or communicated with Ms C. We did not find that the care provided was unreasonable and we did not uphold Ms C's complaints about care. We also considered whether the board investigated and responded to Ms C's complaints appropriately. We did not identify failings in the level of investigation performed or the accuracy of the complaint response. However, we found that the board did not meet the timescales for issuing a response set out in the procedure. For this reason, we upheld this complaint. We were satisfied that the board had taken appropriate action to address this issue since the time of the complaint and we did not make any recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201805373 as a PDF (24.3 KB) Updated: March 18, 2020

Mr C complained about the care and treatment he received during two admissions at Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh. During our consideration of Mr C's complaint, we received independent advice from a consultant colorectal surgeon (a surgeon who specialises in conditions in the colon, rectum or anus) and a registered nurse. During Mr C's first admission, he was diagnosed with appendicitis and received surgery to remove his appendix. Mr C was unhappy that his appendix was not fully removed during the procedure. We found that the initial assessment and treatment were appropriate and timely. We noted that whilst part of Mr C's appendix was not removed, this was a rare but recognised complication of the surgery. We did not conclude that there was an unreasonable failing by staff that resulted in this complication. We were also satisfied that Mr C's discharge from the ward was reasonable. We did not uphold this complaint. During Mr C's second admission, he was diagnosed with stump appendicitis (recurrent inflammation of the residual appendix after the appendix has been only partially removed during surgery). Further surgery was performed to remove the residual appendix tissue. Following the procedure, Mr C's recovery was complicated by infection. We found that the second procedure had been carried out to a very high standard. We considered that the post-operative care was reasonable and we noted that there were appropriate arrangements made for wound care in the community following Mr C's discharge. We did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201802832 as a PDF (24.43 KB) Updated: March 18, 2020

Mr C complained that St Johns Hospital did not provide reasonable treatment to his late father (Mr A) during his hospital admission. During admission Mr A received an incorrect dose of paracetamol which the hospital recognised and responded to. The board determined that the medication error was not a contributory factor to Mr A's death. We took independent advice from a consultant geriatrician (a doctor who specialises inmedicine of the elderly). We found while the general treatment provided to Mr A was reasonable, a significant error occurred, leading to Mr A receiving an overdose of paracetamol. Therefore, we upheld the complaint. Wenoted that the board have already taken action to address this failing so madeno further recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201808122 as a PDF (23.71 KB) Updated: November 20, 2019

Mr C complained about the care and treatment he received in relation to a coronary artery bypass graft (a surgical procedure used to treat coronary heart disease) at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh. We took independent advice from a consultant cardiologist (a specialist in diseases and abnormalities of the heart). We found that Mr C was identified as having ostial left anterior descending artery disease (a narrowing in the blood vessels of the heart) and that the initial choice of treatment for this, bypass surgery, was reasonable. Mr C then had an uncommon but recognised complication of bypass surgery. We found that the decision to perform a second procedure to implant a stent (a small tube used to keep passageways open) was reasonable. We also noted that there was no reason to believe that performing a stent procedure earlier would have translated to any clinical benefit for Mr C. We considered that the clinical care Mr C received was reasonable and did not uphold this aspect of his complaint. Mr C also complained about aspects of his nursing care during his hospital admission when the stent procedure was performed. We took advice from a consultant nurse in cardiology. We found that Mr C was not prescribed appropriate pain relief and that there was contradictory evidence in the records around the management of his pain. Mr C's pain should have been managed better and the failure to do so was unreasonable. We also identified failings in record-keeping, in particular, a failure to complete care documentation, around communication with Mr C and his family, and his discharge from hospital. We considered that the nursing care Mr C received was unreasonable and upheld this aspect of his complaint.

Ms C complained about the care and treatment her late mother (Mrs A) received at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh. When Mrs A was admitted, it was recorded that she had known lung cancer and she was initially treated for pneumonia (inflammation of the lungs). It was subsequently planned that Mrs A would be discharged, but a CT scan showed that she had an accumulation of blood in her abdominal muscle. Mrs A later had a fall. She was monitored overnight, but died the following day. We took independent advice from a consultant geriatrician (a doctor who specialises in medicine of the elderly). We found that the medical treatment provided to Mrs A had been reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. Ms C also complained about the nursing care provided to Mrs A. We took independent advice from a nursing adviser. We found that there was no evidence of any failings that had led to Mrs A's fall in the hospital or that a specific injury sustained in the fall led directly to her death. A robust post falls assessment was also undertaken after the event, which did not indicate any specific injury. Overall, the nursing care provided to Mrs A had been reasonable. However, there were gaps in the nursing notes provided. There was also a lack of evidence of communication with Mrs A's family. In addition, the board's response to Ms C's complaint did not address many of the points she had raised. Given these failings, we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Ms C complained that the board failed to diagnose a ruptured Achilles tendon when she attended Western General Hospital. We took independent advice from a consultant physician in acute internal medicine. We found that given the specific test for excluding a ruptured Achilles tendon was carried out, which resulted in a negative finding, it was reasonable that the ruptured Achilles tendon was not diagnosed. We did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint. Ms C also complained about the care and treatment she received at the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary after the ruptured Achilles tendon had been diagnosed. We took independent advice from a consultant orthopaedic surgeon (a specialist in the treatment of diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system). We found that the care and treatment provided to Ms C was reasonable and did not uphold this aspect of her complaint. Ms C complained that the board failed to communicate reasonably with her. We found that there was no record of any detailed discussion with Ms C prior to her surgeries about the risks or benefits of the proposed operations, the alternatives to surgery or the varying degrees of success and the possibility that her condition could be made worse. The board had a document for recording fasting and insulin instructions for diabetic patients but this was not completed in Ms C's case. Therefore, we upheld Ms C's complaint that the board's communication with her was unreasonable. Ms C complained about the way that that the board handled her complaint. We found that Ms C's complaint was not acknowledged within three working days. There was also a delay in responding to Ms C's complaint and the board did not proactively keep her updated about the reason for the delay in responding to her complaint and provide a revised timescale for when she could expect to receive a response. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Mr C complained that that board failed to provide his late wife (Mrs A) with reasonable care and treatment at Western General Hospital and that they did not respond reasonably to his complaint. We took independent advice from a consultant radiologist (a specialist in diagnosing and treating disease and injury through the use of medical imaging techniques such as x-rays and other scans), a consultant surgeon and a consultant oncologist (cancer specialist). In relation to a CT scan, we found that a lymph node which was partially visible at the bottom of the CT scan, despite being enlarged and abnormal looking, was not noted by the reporting radiologist at the time. The failure to identify the abnormal lymph node was an unreasonable error. We also noted that the review of the CT scan showed concerning nodes with an increase in size in comparison with a CT scan of Mrs A's chest carried out previously. Given this and Mrs A's clinical history, this should have been noted in the scan report. We considered that, had these nodes been noted on the CT scan report, it was likely further investigation would have occurred as a result. We acknowledged that the board had accepted there was a missed potential to make a detailed diagnosis of Mrs A's condition and said they have taken action to learn from this. We asked the board to provide us with evidence of this. We also found that a haematology consultant (a specialist in blood and bone marrow) appropriately referred Mrs A to the surgical department for an excision biopsy of the lymph node. However, due to poor communication between the haematologist and the surgeon about the exact anatomical position of the lymph node, the wrong lymph node was removed for biopsy and the diseased lymph node was left in Mrs A's groin. As a result, the pathology report of the biopsy was falsely reassuring. We also considered that the errors identified in Mrs A's care and treatment led to a delay in the diagnosis that she had terminal metasta