Summary
C complained about the standard of medical care and treatment provided by the board to their late sibling (A) during a long admission to hospital. A’s medical history was complex as they suffered from a number of life threatening conditions during their hospital admission and they were under the care of a number of specialities. It was not until after A died, when the post mortem was performed, that A’s cancer was identified.
C said that the various clinicians should have identified A’s cancer, and that communication was not reasonable. C also said clinicians did not manage A’s pain well which was unreasonable and very distressing for the family.
We took independent advice from specialists in urology (urinary system and male reproductive organs), cardiology (heart), radiology (imaging) and end of life care. We found that treatment decisions were reasonable, and that the board managed A’s pain in a reasonable way. We also found that it was reasonable for clinicians not to have diagnosed A with cancer. Therefore, we did not uphold C’s complaints.
However, there were aspects of communication that the board should consider improving and we provided this as feedback.
Related reading
View Decision Report 202306662 as a PDF (24.41 KB) Updated: May 21, 2025