A man was twice sent home from hospital with painkillers after suffering a broken neck in a car crash. The university student was in such �excruciating� pain that he passed out at home and returned to Stirling Royal Infirmary the same day.

A man was twice sent home from hospital with painkillers after suffering a broken neck in a car crash.

The university student was in such "excruciating" pain that he passed out at home and returned to Stirling Royal Infirmary the same day. On both occasions the same doctor diagnosed whiplash and sent him way with painkillers.

The hospital was told that the car in which he had been a passenger had rolled down an embankment and the crushed vehicle was compared with a "crisp packet".

It took eight weeks before the man, named as Mr C in an ombudsman's investigation, was correctly diagnosed.

The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman upheld his complaint and forced Forth Valley Health Board to apologise.

The board was also urged to use the man's case as an example of how not to treat such an injury when training its junior doctors.

Ombudsman Professor Alice Brown said: "Mr C said the senior house officer diagnosed whiplash and sent him home with ibuprofen and co-codamol and an exercise leaflet for patients suffering from acute neck strain.

"At no point was an X-ray suggested and the whole examination took less than three minutes."

Later that day the man fell to the ground unconscious in pain. Paramedics were called and they advised him to go to hospital immediately.

The same senior house officer carried out an examination and reconfirmed her diagnosis.

No X-ray was taken and Mr C was discharged with a stronger form of co-codamol.

Over the following weeks Mr C said he continued to have intense pain and attended his GP and then osteopath.

The osteopath wrote to the GP to request that Mr C have an X-ray immediately.

Two months after the accident, he was X-rayed and the radiologist told him that he had broken his neck.

He saw another consultant who said Mr C had sustained a serious neck injury and the options were to "do nothing and that he could lead a relatively, allbeit inactive, normal life; or to have an operation which carried significant risks. Mr C was referred urgently to the neurological ward at another hospital".

He underwent the operation and metal pins and bolts were inserted into his neck, as well as bone grafted from his hip.

Mr C was told he had to refrain from contact sport for a year, which was "depressing" as one of his subjects at university was sports science.

Ms Brown said her medical advisor had told her that the "senior house officer's questioning was inadequate".

She added: "There was a clear history of (vehicle) roll-over recorded at triage and this was diluted' to rolled into a verge' which presumably was taken to be a lesser impact.

"Mr C believed that the treatment which he received at the hospital on June 24, 2007, was inadequate and that the senior house officer should have arranged an X-ray or sought advice from a senior member of staff.

"The adviser felt the senior house officer failed to take a detailed enough history or to read the triage note and so probably misunderstood the magnitude of the accident and based her application of the rule on incomplete facts."

The ombudsman recommended that the board apologise to Mr C, share the report with the senior house officer "so that she can reflect on her actions" and consider using the circumstances of this complaint in an anonymised form as a learning tool for junior staff working in accident and emergency.

The board has accepted the recommendations and will "act on them accordingly".