Summary
Mr C complained about the care and treatment of his wife (Mrs C) while she was in hospital over a two-month period. Mrs C had, amongst other things, a history of diverticular disease (a disease affecting the colon). During the period concerned she was admitted three times and three surgical procedures were carried out. After the third operation, Mrs C's condition declined and she died. Mr C believed that not enough was done for his wife; that on her first admission she should have been x-rayed, and that some of the treatment provided made her condition worse. Mr C also questioned the timing of his wife's second operation and said that she was discharged despite continuing symptoms and the fact that she had an infection. He believed that she should have been given a scan before discharge. During her third operation, he said that a stoma (a surgically created pouch on the outside of the body for body waste) should have been created.
In investigating the complaint, we took into account all the available information provided by Mr C and by the board, including all the complaints correspondence and Mrs C's relevant clinical notes. We also obtained independent advice from a medical adviser. We did not, however, uphold Mr C's complaint.
The adviser said that the care and treatment given to Mrs C on her first two admissions was completely reasonable. However, they also said that on the third admission the treatment was difficult to explain insofar as it relied upon the findings during surgery, and the clinical opinion and judgment of the surgeon at the time. The adviser went on to say that, with the benefit of hindsight, the surgeon concerned might well have made a different decision. However, the adviser was clear that the action ultimately taken was entirely reasonable in the circumstances at the time.
Related reading
View Decision Report 201203825 as a PDF (11.59 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018