PHSO

Listening and Learning:

The Ombudsman’s review of complaint handling by the NHS in England 2011-12

Making big improvements after very serious failings

A single complaint can lead to dramatic improvements for patients and their families. Miss G’s story highlights the ongoing improvements required in the NHS for individuals with learning disabilities, a problem starkly set out in our 2009 report Six Lives.

Miss G, a woman in her early 50s with learning disabilities and a  history of bipolar disorder, was diagnosed with gallstones and needed surgery.  She was admitted to a hospital run by the Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust  (the hospital trust). They could not operate immediately due to inflammation  and she was sent home until the operation could be done. In the meantime, Miss  G was unable to cope with the pain, and she was sectioned to the psychiatrist  ward run by Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust (the care trust) because of her  behaviour. Her medical notes were not acquired by them and they would not  listen to her family. She did not have her operation for four months. Following  the surgery, she developed a bowel blockage, for which she had another  operation. Sadly, she died two weeks later. While these events took place Miss  G was transferred back and forth between these two trusts, despite the fact  that they were in the same building.

Miss G’s brother and sister-in-law, Mr and Mrs A, complained to  us, supported by Mencap. We investigated both trusts and found that Miss G’s  care had not been properly co-ordinated or managed.  There was no evidence that the trusts had  taken Miss G’s disabilities into account when planning her care, although this  was a legal obligation under disability discrimination law.  In particular:

  •  
  • Nursing records did not clearly say what care  was planned, what decisions had been made, or what care had been delivered.
  •  
  • Communication between nurses, doctors and other  clinical staff and with Miss G and her family was ineffective, and they did not  help her to understand what was happening. This meant distressing events were  made even more distressing for Miss G.
  •  
  • Neither trust made adequate use of community  learning disability services to make sure Miss G had support for her specific  needs.
  •  
  • When Miss G missed appointments at the hospital  trust, they did not consider how to ensure she attended her appointments. This  meant that her gallstones were untreated for over five months, which would have  made her feel unwell and in pain.
  •  
  • After surgery, nobody took account of her  specific needs, and she ended up very agitated and ‘running around’.
  •  
  • Doctors at both trusts failed to adequately  assess and manage Miss G’s condition after the second operation, and she  was transferred back to the care trust prematurely.
  •  
  • The psychiatrist at the care trust did not  ensure her care was properly co-ordinated and managed. Staff at the care trust  did not listen to the people who knew her best — the team that cared for her  and members of her family — or allow them to be involved.

The trusts’ failings meant Miss G experienced unnecessary  physical and mental suffering. If this period of poor care had not occurred it  is likely that Miss G’s death could have been avoided. Mr and Mrs A suffered  the loss of a much loved member of their family: an injustice that can never be  remedied. We upheld their complaints about both trusts.

Both trusts agreed to acknowledge and apologise for their  failings and offer Mr and Mrs A compensation of £15,000. Both trusts also  agreed to put together action plans that described how they had learnt from  their failings and what they would do to stop them happening again.

Six months after the  investigation finished, Mencap told us that Mr and Mrs A were very pleased with  the action taken by the hospital trust.