Summary
Ms C, who works for an advice and support agency, complained on behalf of her client (Mr A) about the care and treatment provided to him at Uist and Barra Hospital. Mr A was catheterised (a process that involves inserting a tube to the patient's urethra to allow urine to drain freely from the bladder for collection), and Ms C complained that this was done unnecessarily, and without his consent. She also complained that the record-keeping for this admission was not of an appropriate standard.
We took independent advice from a consultant physician and a nurse. We found that it had been necessary from a medical standpoint to catheterise Mr A. We also found that whilst Mr A's consent was not documented, there is no requirement for this and there was no evidence to suggest that Mr A did not consent to catheterisation. We considered that record-keeping was of a reasonable standard. We did not uphold these aspects of Ms C's complaint.
Ms C also complained that Mr A's initial verbal complaints were not handled appropriately. The board accepted that this was the case and we, therefore, upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint.
Recommendations
What we asked the organisation to do in this case: Apologise to Mr A for failing to handle his initial verbal complaints appropriately. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
In relation to complaints handling, we recommended: Verbal complaints should be handled in line with the complaints handling procedure.
We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.
Related reading
View Decision Report 201800997 as a PDF (23.92 KB) Updated: December 19, 2018