Overview
The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns regarding the delay in diagnosing his sister's stroke and admitting her to hospital.
Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:
- (a) NHS 24 failed to make a correct diagnosis despite evidence to indicate that Mrs D had suffered a stroke (not upheld);
- (b) NHS 24 failed to give this case a high priority (not upheld);
- (c) NHS 24 incorrectly called for an out-of-hours GP rather than an ambulance (not upheld);
- (d) the GP failed to stay with the patient whilst waiting for the ambulance (upheld);
- (e) the GP failed to give the case a high priority (upheld);
- (f) the GP failed to provide a referral note to the hospital (not upheld); and
- (g) the ambulance took an unreasonable time to attend (upheld).
Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:
- (i) reflect on what lessons can be learned from this case;
- (ii) consider how to communicate these lessons to Practitioners; and
- (iii) advise her of their conclusions.
The Ombudsman recommends that the Service:
- (iv) issue a further apology to Mr C and his nephew Mr D in respect of the additional delays in responding to the call from the GP;
- (v) issue an apology for the incorrect information detailed in their earlier response to the complaint; and
- (vi) consider reviewing their procedures for adhering to timescales for attendance at incidents, particularly with a view to ensuring that the correct information is provided to callers.
The Board and the Service have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.