Summary
C had experienced pain and numbness in their hands over a period of years and was referred to the board for treatment. C underwent some tests and was offered repeat carpal tunnel surgery. C complained that the board failed to provide reasonable care and treatment. Unhappy with the board's response to their complaint, C brought the complaint to our office.
We took independent advice about all the complaints raised with us.
C complained that the board failed to carry out reasonable tests and investigations prior to their surgery. While we considered that the rationale provided by the surgeon in relation to what tests were carried out was reasonable, we questioned whether this was reasonably explained to C. We considered that the contemporaneous records did not evidence a thorough assessment of C's condition prior to the surgery being carried out. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of C's complaint.
C complained that the board unreasonably carried out surgery to their hands. We considered that the decision to undertake the revision surgery was reasonable, albeit that further investigations could have been carried out prior to this. C had previously had carpal tunnel surgery. We noted carpal tunnel can recur and it was reasonable for a second operation to be considered. On that basis the offer of surgery was reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.
C complained that the board failed to offer a reasonable treatment plan after their surgery. We considered that after it was found the surgery had been unsuccessful, the actions recommended by the surgical team were reasonable. They offered to refer C back to the pain clinic and, after this was declined, discharged C back to the care of their GP. We concluded the board's treatment plan and actions regarding pain management were reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.
Recommendations
What we asked the organisation to do in this case: Apologise to C for failing to reasonably evidence a thorough assessment of C prior to undertaking surgery and for the administrative error regarding the nerve conduction test results. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
What we said should change to put things right in future: Clinicians should ensure the assessment of a patient is accurately recorded including the rationale behind decision-making.
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 202002295 as a PDF (27.31 KB) Updated: May 19, 2021