Health Service Commissioner : first report for session 1981-82 : selected investigations completed April-September 1981 / Health Service Commissioner.

  • Great Britain. Health Service Commissioner.
Date:
[1981]
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Health Service Commissioner : first report for session 1981-82 : selected investigations completed April-September 1981 / Health Service Commissioner. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    10/218 (page 8)
    same question but to no avail. I then explained to [them] that to give a local anaesthetic for such an area the number of injections would cause [their son] considerable pain, but this was a decision which could only be made by the medical staff. As [the SHO] could not reach any decision I suggested to him that he contact [the SCO] who had just come into the department.’ The NO told my officer that he had no doubt whatsoever that the SHO had had difficulty in understanding what the complainant and his wife were “getting at’. 9, The SHO told my officer that, when he saw the complainant’s son, he had been at the hospital only about two weeks and that this was his first job in England. He said that, at the time, neither his understanding of the spoken English word, particularly when spoken with a Yorkshire accent, nor his own spoken English, was as good as it might have been. But his medical training had been undertaken in English. He said that he knew of the risks of anaesthetising young children and, although he could not remember the particular case, this would have been a factor which he took into consideration when deciding what treatment to offer the complainant’s son. The SCO told my officer that he could not remember this case being brought to his attention but thought he might well have advised the SHO to treat the child under a general anaesthetic. However, he had no recollection of speaking to the parents. 10. My officer also interviewed the consultant in charge of the A and E department. He said that the SHO, as a registered doctor, had every right to decide upon, and adopt, a course of treatment for a patient. He said that, because of the extent of the abrasions, he himself would probably not have treated the complainant’s son without the administration of an anaesthetic. Findings 11. I uphold the first of these complaints to the extent that I am satisfied by the evidence that the SHO did not answer the parents’ questions properly because he could not understand them. That amounted to a failure in the service. But I do not uphold the second complaint, because professional staff are entitled to differ on matters of clinical judgment, especially as to whether a young child should be given a general anaesthetic, and it is not for me to say that there is only one valid opinion on the point. (c) The complaint about the issue of the spray 12. The complainant told my officers that he and his wife returned with their son to the hospital on 9 July when, after some apparent hesitation by the nursing staff about what exactly was required, the figure-of-eight bandage was replaced. He was not examined by a member of the medical staff. Before the complainant and his wife left the hospital they were supplied with a spray canister and they were told to use the spray, three times daily, on the part of the abrasion not covered by the figure-of-eight bandage. On Monday 11 July, after his son had been seen by the consultant, the complainant received a telephone call from his wife to say that the consultant wanted to admit their son to the Children’s Ward (the ward) and that he had told her that the spray should not have been used. 13. All the nursing staff on duty in the A and E department on the morning of 9 July were interviewed by my officer and none of them could recall either a spray canister being given to the complainant and his wife or could imagine any