Clinical failing but appropriate safeguarding

What happened

Miss E had a history of urological (related to the urinary system) and other symptoms that had been investigated by the Trust. Contrary to Miss E's wishes, the Trust discharged her from its urology department because it believed further treatment was not warranted. It referred Miss E back to her GP on the basis that no urological cause for her symptoms could be found. Miss E disagreed with this decision but, before this could be resolved, the Trust banned her from the urology department and asked her to seek any further treatment at a neighbouring Trust.

The Trust's decision to exclude Miss E from its urology department was as a result of concerns that she had made inappropriate advances to its consultant urology surgeon.

Miss E complained to the Trust about the ban and that she felt humiliated that the Trust had discriminated against her due to her disabilities. The Trust responded saying that it was felt that Miss E did not require review by the urology team. It also appeared that the professional and therapeutic relationship between her and the urology team had irrevocably broken down because of her inappropriate communication to a member of the team. In view of that, its suggestion was that a referral to a neighbouring Trust would be appropriate if she or her GP felt further urological investigations were required in the future. Miss E remained unhappy with the response and came to us.

What we found

We partly upheld this complaint. The initial decision, that further investigation of Miss E's urological symptoms was not warranted, was flawed. We saw that there were a number of possible abnormalities in the investigations carried out and that there were some treatment options that could have been of benefit to Miss E. We felt that it was unreasonable for the Trust to have referred Miss E back to her GP on the basis that no urological cause for her symptoms could be found. This was a failing.

However, we considered that given the nature of Miss E's later contact it was reasonable to stop her seeing the consultant urology surgeon. The Trust tried to arrange some appointments with another consultant but Miss E was unwilling on each occasion. Before further arrangements could be made, the contact concerns escalated, leaving the Trust with little option but to decline to see Miss E at all. We found that this was appropriate.

Putting it right

The Trust apologised to Miss E for referring her back to her GP having failed to recognise that she could have been offered further investigation and/or treatment. It also paid Miss E £250 in recognition of the distress she experienced from the Trust's failure to carry out further urological investigation and treatment.