SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C complained about the care and treatment he received from his medical practice. Specifically, he said that he had been prescribed the wrong drugs for his illness. He maintained that he had resisted the prescriptions but that his GP had refused to change or stop his medication. He believed that his continuing mental health problems were as a consequence of receiving the wrong drugs. The investigation found no evidence to suggest that the treatment given to Mr C was incorrect. We also did not find any evidence to suggest that Mr C had asked for his prescriptions to be changed or stopped or that his requests had been refused. We found that all the drugs prescribed to Mr C were appropriate for his presenting condition, and we did not uphold his complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201101237 as a PDF (13.67 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained on behalf of her late mother (Mrs A) about the care and treatment that she received from her GP practice. Mrs A attended the surgery for a period of two years with repeated complaints of breathlessness, pain in the back and rib cage, and a cough. She made the practice aware of a family history of lung disease and lung cancer. She was treated for numerous chest infections but received little or no relief from her symptons. Mrs A's condition deteriorated and she was admitted to hospital and diagnosed with terminal cancer of the lung, liver and upper chest. Mrs A died shortly after. Ms C complained that the practice failed to properly investigate Mrs A's symptoms within a reasonable time and that they failed to suspect her condition and refer her to hospital within a reasonable time. We found that the practice carried out reasonable investigations, but that they should have had a high index of suspicion of lung cancer given Mrs A's strong family history and that she was previously a heavy smoker. Our medical adviser said that the practice should have considered referring Mrs A to a respiratory specialist when her respiratory symptoms had persisted for more than six weeks and were unexplained. However, we also found that even if the diagnosis had been made sooner, this was unlikely to have affected the outcome because Mrs A probably had a non-curable disease at presentation. Having said that, an earlier diagnosis might have improved her quality of life because it would have allowed treatments to be explored that might have alleviated some of her symptoms.

Mrs C complained that she was removed from the practice list without warning or reasonable explanation. She also complained that the practice failed to give her advice about, or treat, a leg injury. In addition, Mrs C complained that the practice failed to refer her to appropriate specialists for treatment for ongoing health problems. We did not uphold the complaint about referral to specialists. We found from looking at the practice's records and taking advice from one of our clinical advisers, that Mrs C was referred appropriately. We also found that, as Mrs C went to hospital for her leg injury, the practice were not responsible for treating it. The practice said they gave Mrs C appropriate advice about her leg injury. However, because they did not have a record of this, we upheld the complaint. We also upheld the complaint that Mrs C was removed from the list without warning, as we felt that the practice could have given one. However, we agreed that the practice had given Mrs C a reasonable explanation when they did remove her from the list.