THE widow of a man who died after an NHS blunder meant a bowel cancer diagnosis was delayed by more than six months has accused a hospital of attempting to cover up a catalogue of errors.
The patient, who was 71 when he died, survived for just six months after he was finally diagnosed with terminal cancer in October 2011.
He had initially been referred for urgent tests at Hairmyres Hospital in East Kilbride the previous March, but did not receive an appointment and was kicked off a waiting list.
It was only when he returned to his GP in August that the tests were arranged. They were eventually carried out in September and October.
NHS Lanarkshire initially claimed that the father-of-four, a former scaffolder, had phoned up to cancel his initial appointment. However, his wife revealed that he was unable to speak on the phone as the result of a major stroke.
She maintains that the hospital did not write to her husband to offer an appointment.
Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Jim Martin, who investigated the case, said there was no clear evidence of when the two letters which NHS Lanarkshire should have issued had been sent out and that the claim an appointment had been cancelled by phone was incorrect.
NHS Lanarkshire admitted it failed to notify the patient's GP that he had been removed from the waiting list, as it should have done.
The widow, who has asked to remain anonymous, said she is still struggling to come to terms with the errors the hospital, in her home town, committed.
"I don't even like passing by the hospital," she said. "It all brings it all back. If they had just sent a letter apologising... but no-one seemed to care. They have lied and been covering up for each other.
"I do think the outcome might have been different if we'd got the diagnosis earlier, I feel there is something that could have been done."
The Ombudsman also criticised the health board for the manner in which it delayed a sigmoidoscopy, a procedure in which the colon is examined.
The patient attended the hospital for the appointment but was kept waiting for four hours in considerable pain before being told the appointment had been cancelled with no explanation. It went ahead a week later.
Mr Martin said: "I am critical that the board's original response to [the] complaint provided incorrect information about [the patient] calling to cancel an appointment when there was no evidence of this. This must have added to distress at such a difficult time. I am also critical of the board's lack of audit trail to show when the two appointment letters were issued.
"The board have acknowledged that they failed to inform the GP that [the patient] was removed from the waiting list on 27 April 2011 in accordance with their appointment protocol. I consider this caused an unreasonable de lay of around six months in bowel symptoms being investigated and cancer diagnosis being known."
An expert advisor to the Ombudsman said it was unlikely that the patient's prognosis would have been better had he been diagnosed six months earlier. However, he said the patient and his family would have had longer to come to terms with the condition.
As a result of the Ombudsman's recommendations, NHS Lanarkshire is to investigate whether its rules have been followed in other cases where patients have been removed from waiting lists.
A spokeswoman for the health board said: "We regret any instance where we have failed to maintain the highest standard. We have fully accepted the recommendations contained within the Ombudsman's report and will be writing to the complainant with our sincere apologies. We will also develop an action plan to address the areas highlighted within the report and ensure lessons learned are shared across NHS Lanarkshire".
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article