A CANCER patient may have lost her chance of a cure because of a row over where she should be treated.
An inquiry is underway at two health boards after consultants in Glasgow decided not to accept the woman's referral - without management approval - because she was from Lanarkshire.
No plans were made for her surgery at either Monkland's Hospital or the former Southern General for several weeks until she followed it up repeatedly.
The patient had previously suffered from mouth cancer and was treated at Monkland's.
She was seen again at the hospital after finding an ulcer in her cheek which was found to be cancerous and referred to the Southern General Hospital for treatment.
However, the referral - sent by email from the consultant - was not done until a week later. It is not clear if the email was even received.
An inquiry by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman found that around this time the head and neck specialists at the Southern General Hospital decided that, due to lack of capacity, they would no longer accept referrals of patients they considered could be treated locally.
However Mrs C was not told that there was a problem with her referral.
She grew increasingly concerned about the delay, and phoned the consultant at Monklands Hospital several times over the next few weeks to follow this up.
Finally, about a month later Mrs C emailed the consultant, outlining her concerns and the consultant phoned the Southern General Hospital and arranged an urgent appointment for Mrs C.
The investigation found that the woman had initially been told that surgery would be performed with the aim of providing a cure.
However, the surgery that she received significantly reduced her quality of life and gave her a low chance of surviving her cancer.
An inquiry found there was "unreasonable" delays in arranging the surgery.
Jim Martin, Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, said: "I am concerned that an important decision (not to accept certain referrals) could be made and implemented at NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde without clear, recorded management approval.
"It was only through Mrs C's courage and perseverance in following up her own appointment that this matter was resolved.
"This case involves a patient who was left without any plans for her cancer surgery for several weeks, as the boards were unable to effectively communicate about, and resolve, an administrative disagreement over who was responsible for the surgery."
Mr Martin was also critical about the way in which both health boards cooperated in the investigation.
NHS Lanarkshire failed to provide a key piece of evidence and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde also provided new evidence at a late stage, which directly contradicted information they had previously given during the investigation
NHS Lanarkshire has been ordered to apologise to Mrs C and both board have been told to carry out an internal investigation.
Dr Jane Burns, NHS Lanarkshire acute divisional medical director, said: “We have written to the patient directly to offer a sincere and unreserved apology for the failings on our part and for the distress these undoubtedly caused. It is very clear from the report that we fell below the standards of care any patient should expect from NHS Lanarkshire.
“We fully accept the Ombudsman’s recommendations and will ensure action is taken to address the issues that have been raised. We are currently undertaking a joint significant event analysis with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to avoid similar incidents in the future.”
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 here