NHS Highland ordered to apologise to widowed spouse of A&E patient over complaints process; but clears it over A&E mistreatment claims
Register for free to read more of the latest local news. It's easy and will only take a moment.
HEALTH chiefs have been ordered to apologise to the widowed spouse of a former patient and improve the complaints process at NHS Highland.
The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman made the recommendation in response to a complaint made by a spouse over the treatment of their loved one at A&E.
The patient's relative, referred to by the ombudsman only as 'C', had argued that NHS Highland had failed to provide their spouse – patient 'A' – "with reasonable care and treatment" during three separate visits to an accident and emergency department and their admission to hospital.
But while the ombudsman cleared the health board of any failings in its treatment of patient A, they did rule that improvements are needed to its complaints handling process.
C had argued that NHS Highland had failed to handle their complaint "reasonably", which the ombudsman agreed with in its findings. It explained: "C said that the board did not contact them during their complaint investigation. They also highlighted that the board did not address all their concerns.
"We found that the board failed to address and respond to a significant part of the complaint raised by C until prompted to do so by this office. Therefore, we upheld this part of C's complaint."
Recommending improvements to NHS Highland's complaints process – and ordering the board to apologise to C over its failings there – the ombudsman said: "The board's complaints handling system and their investigation should ensure that failings (and good practice) are identified, and enable learning from complaints to inform service development and improvement.
"Complaints should be properly assessed in line with the Model Complaints Handling Procedure and all points of complaint should be identified and agreed before the complaint investigation begins.
"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."
However, while it ruled in favour of this part of C's complaint, the ombudsman did not agree with another part which claimed their partner had not received reasonable care.
"We took independent advice from a consultant in emergency medicine," the ombudsman said. "We found that appropriate and timely emergency care was provided to A on each of their attendances at A&E. We also noted that a clinical significant event review was carried out.
"The issues were fully explored and the board had appropriately reviewed and reflected on learning. We considered that A received reasonable care and treatment at A&E and as an inpatient. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C's complaint."
