NHS Fife apologises to widow over care failings

NHS FIFE has apologised to the wife of a cancer victim for failing to care for him properly.

The man, known as Mr C, died from advanced renal cancer in 2010 having been treated at Queen Margaret Hospital in Dunfermline.

Following an investigation into complaints raised by his wife, Mrs C, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman told NHS Fife to apologise for delaying the patient’s treatment and moving him late at night while his condition was deteriorating.

George Brechin, chief executive of NHS Fife, said lessons has been learned.

“I have written to the family to apologise for the shortfalls identified in the Ombudsman’s report,” he said.

“I would again like to offer our sincere condolences to the family for what went wrong in 2010.”

Mr C was diagnosed a year after he underwent an operation to remove a large tumour on his left kidney. His wife said delays in investigating his illness had deprived the couple of precious time together and she had not been aware of how gravely ill he had been.

Ombudsman Jim Martin upheld three of five complaints lodged by Mrs C. He agreed there had been a “lack of urgency” in diagnosing Mr C’s condition, that there had been “avoidable delays” in chasing up test results from the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary and that it had been “unnecessary and inappropriate” to move the patient so often.

Claims there was unnecessary delay in referring Mr C to thewestern General Hospital and that staff had shown an “unreasonable” attitude were not upheld.

Mr Martin said in his report: “I found that there was a lack of urgency and that there were avoidable delays in investigating Mr C’s condition, obtaining test results and providing him with a definitive diagnosis.

“I took advice from one of my specialist medical advisers, who said that Mr C’s case was very complicated and that the symptoms he displayed were unusual.

“He said, however, that before Mr C’s kidney was removed, there were indications of abnormalities and that at that stage tests should have been done to decide whether there was lung malignancy.

“He said that there was an incorrect interpretation of scans, as well as delays in investigating the problem. Results of tests carried out were inconclusive, but the delays in reporting these results showed a lack of urgency about Mr C’s case and it was pos- sible that a diagnosis could have been made earlier.

“The adviser commented that earlier diagnosis might not have changed the outcome for Mr C, but would have allowed Mr and Mrs C to have been better prepared.

“I recommend that the board apologise to Mrs C for the delays and arrange for the urology multi-disciplinary team cancer network to review this case and act on any recommendations made, as well as looking at their monitoring and follow-up procedures with a view to making them more robust.

“Mrs C also complained that it was unnecessary and inappropriate to move her husband so often while his condition was deteriorating.

“I recommended that the board apologise for moving Mr C late at night and that they consider their own bed transfer policy and practice.”