Summary
Mr C complained about the care and treatment he received from a prison health centre in relation to his eye condition. He was concerned that he received various different medications, none of which helped and some of which appeared to worsen his condition. He, therefore, felt that he had been inaccurately diagnosed, and he complained that he was not referred to an eye specialist sooner.
We took independent advice from one of our medical advisers, who observed that Mr C had been seen on a number of occasions by healthcare staff and examined repeatedly. Our adviser noted that examinations did not reveal any serious underlying problems and that this mirrored the subsequent findings of the eye specialist. As such, she did not consider there to have been an earlier indication for a referral to a specialist. We fully accepted this advice and did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.
Mr C also raised concerns about the way his complaint was handled. We noted that he submitted multiple complaint forms on the issue, and the prison health centre continued to try to resolve these informally. The guidance only allows a three-day window for informal resolution, following which the complaint should be formally acknowledged and investigated. This did not happen for several weeks and, seemingly, only upon Mr C's prompting. We identified other failings to follow due process, such as an initial failure to inform Mr C of his right to approach this office. In the circumstances, we upheld this part of the complaint.
Recommendations
We recommended that the board: review their handling of this case with a view to making improvements and ensuring compliance with their statutory responsibilities, as set out in the ‘Can I help you?’ guidance; and apologise to Mr C for the identified failings in their handling of his complaint.
Related reading
View Decision Report 201403402 as a PDF (12.94 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018