SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained on behalf of their sibling (A) following A's contact with a health board’s mental health service when they were in crisis. C was concerned about the standard of care and treatment provided to A. C’s concerns were wide-ranging and covered numerous aspects of the provision of care and treatment. C said this included repeated, unreasonable, failures by staff to recognise and diagnose A with psychosis and paranoia, to prescribe appropriate medication, to communicate adequately with A or their family or both, adequately supervise A, to agree a care plan and put in place appropriate discharge care, and to admit A as an in-patient at each emergency department attendance. We took independent advice from a consultant psychiatrist and from a mental health nurse. We found that the diagnosis was appropriately assessed and reasonable conclusions reached on management and treatment of A. However, we also noted some concerns about aspects of communication with A and their family and found significant shortcomings in relation to record-keeping about a discharge from one hospital admission in particular. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Miss C was referred by her GP to a health board in Scotland for gender reassignment. However, although she was assessed as being eligible and referred to the board's gender identity clinic, she is still waiting for some treatment including surgery. Miss C said that the delay in treatment has had an adverse effect on her mental health, which has been exacerbated by the failure to keep her informed about the delays in a reasonable way. We considered the relevant Scottish Government protocol, which requires health boards to ensure their gender reassignment service is provided in an effective way and within a reasonable time. We also considered the evidence from Miss C's clinical records about her contact with the clinic. We found that the board do not yet have a functioning gender reassignment pathway. We recognised the continuing difficulties the board experienced in providing some aspects of their gender reassignment service and noted the steps they had taken to re-establish this and address the remaining gaps identified. Even so, the board are still not in a position to provide a full gender reassignment service, which has a far-reaching impact on transgender patients. In relation to communication, we found that the standard of communication between staff and Miss C and her family was unreasonable and noted it was likely the impact of delays on transgender patients would be compounded by any communication failings. In addition to staff failing to respond at all to communication, there was a failure to be open and transparent about the difficulties the board had in providing a gender reassignment service. We upheld the complaints.

Ms C complained about the council's actions when she reported concerns about her child (Child A) to the social work department on several occasions. We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that in relation to the first time Ms C raised concerns, the records were inadequate to determine whether the decisions made by the council were reasonable or not. We found that in relation to the second time Ms C raised concerns, the council should have carried out further investigation and it was unreasonable that they did not. We found that when the council was contacted by a health board in relation to concerns about Child A, they failed to assess the matter in full and therefore failed to follow national guidance on 'Getting it right for every child' (GIRFEC). We considered that it unclear from the records why the council took no further action at this point. Overall, we found that there had been a failure to properly record what happened, assessments, and follow-up. We upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint. Ms C also complained about the council's communication with her and their handling of her complaint. We found that the complaint responses to Ms C lacked empathy and understanding. We were also critical that the council's complaint process did not identify the failings in social work practice and failed to acknowledge the significance of poor record-keeping in this case. We considered this to be unreasonable and we upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Ms C has type 1 diabetes and needed a consultant-led maternity unit for the delivery of her baby. The board (Board 1) have a service level agreement (SLA) with another health board (Board 2) for the provision of specialist care, which meant Ms C would deliver her baby there. Ms C asked Board 1 if she could instead deliver her baby at a hospital in a different board area (Board 3), where she would have access to greater support from her family. Board 1 refused this request as they did not consider there to be any clinical need for Ms C's care to be transferred to Board 3. Ms C complained that this decision was unreasonable and was taken without consideration of her individual needs. We took independent advice from a consultant obstetrician (a doctor who specialises in pregnancy, childbirth and the female reproductive system), who was critical that the initial decision was taken at senior midwife level with no apparent medical input. The board indicated that treatment outside the SLA can be approved when there are deemed to be compelling clinical grounds. We were of the view that they should, therefore, have a more robust process in place to fully assess individual medical needs. Medical input was later obtained, but only when Board 1 investigated the complaint. This showed that Ms C's consultant physician was becoming concerned that the stress from the situation was impacting on her health and diabetic control. We considered that these ongoing and developing medical reasons might reasonably have led Board 1 to reconsider their position. We considered the reasonableness of Board 1's overall refusal, further to Ms C's complaint and their review of the position. We considered that Board 1 had not provided sufficient evidence that they took full account of all Ms C's relevant medical needs (which we noted had evolved with the passage of time). Ms C subsequently registered as a patient in Board 3 and delivered her baby there. We found that Board 1 had sent a l

Mr C complained about the care and treatment his late father (Mr A) received at the Royal Alexandra Hospital. In particular, Mr C complained about an unreasonable delay in diagnosing and treating Mr A's metastatic melanoma (skin cancer that has spread). Mr C also complained about a failure to communicate clearly from the outset to Mr A that he was suspected to have cancer. We took independent advice from a plastic surgeon. We found that appropriate investigations were carried out into Mr A's condition. However, we found that Mr A's treatment plan should have been discussed by the multi-disciplinary team when there were concerning findings from his full body scan. We also found that it would have been appropriate for Mr A to have been offered a scan. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. We found that discussions with Mr A about his condition were not recorded. The board acknowledged failings in their record-keeping and outlined steps that they had taken to address this. We upheld the complaint and we have asked the board to provide evidence of the action that they said they have taken to address this.

Ms C, who works for an advocacy and support agency, complained on behalf of her client (Mrs B). Ms C raised concerns that the board did not take appropriate action in relation to an ulcer on Mrs B's daughter (Ms A)'s heel. Ms A had a number of complex health conditions, including diabetes, and Ms C complained that neither the podiatrist that saw Ms A, nor the surgeon that saw her, raised any alarm about the fact the heel wound was getting worse. We took independent advice from a podiatrist and from a surgeon. We found that Ms A should have been seen by the lead podiatrist at an earlier point and that this may have resulted in a swifter referral to a specialist team. We also found that the podiatry team failed to appropriately use diabetic foot screening tools. We further found that the surgeon that saw Ms A recommended a treatment that would not be normal practice and did not document any reason for this. We found that whilst they reasonably arranged a scan for Ms A's foot, this should have been done at an earlier point, and a management plan should have been made. We also found that the board's own complaints investigation did not identify or address the failings in the care provided to Ms A. We upheld this complaint. However, since the events of this complaint, the board had implemented a detailed and comprehensive action plan to improve the care pathways for diabetic feet, which we found reasonable. We, therefore, limited our recommendations to areas which we felt had not been covered by the board's action plan.

Mr C complained that the board failed to provide him with appropriate ongoing psychiatric treatment and support after he was admitted to a hospital psychiatric unit. After taking independent advice from one of our medical advisers - a consultant psychiatrist - we found that Mr C was treated appropriately whilst he was in the hospital. However, several months after he left there, he was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder. We found that psychiatrists had failed to adequately document a detailed medical history, and that the diagnosis was not adequately founded or justified. It was not made with sufficient rigour and was not reviewed appropriately. There was no evidence that assessment for psychological treatments was carried out so that Mr C could be offered treatment promptly. His care and management were not coordinated and there was no evidence that his care plan had been reviewed. In addition, it was not clear whether the findings of a scan were adequately communicated to him. We found that this delayed Mr C's treatment for a number of months. In view of all of this, we upheld the complaint. However, we found that a psychiatrist who had later taken over Mr C's care had been following an appropriate plan of further investigation in collaboration with Mr C's GP. Mr C also complained that staff had failed to admit him to the psychiatric unit when he was discharged from another hospital after attempting suicide. The discharge letters from the other hospital, however, did not say that Mr C should be admitted to the unit. We found that it had been reasonable for the board not to readmit Mr C at that time and did not uphold this aspect of his complaint.