Health Complaint Outcomes
Examples of the types of complaints we have resolved include:
Misdiagnosis resulting in emergency surgery
A woman raised concerns about being misdiagnosed at a hospital with vaccine-related synovitis and arthritis. She was later diagnosed with a fracture requiring an emergency hip replacement.
The hospital acknowledged that other potential causes for the woman's pain and repeat presentations should have been explored and reimbursed her for the medical expenses she incurred as a result.
Disproportionate restrictions on inpatient's rights
A man lodged a complaint about restrictions imposed on him while in a health facility. He said personal items which he had previously had access to were removed and he was not able to attend his online university course because the scheduled class time occurred during the nurses' break. After investigating the matter, the Commission recommended the facility ensure any directions in relation to prohibiting items be a notifiable instrument in accordance with relevant legislation; that the facility make decisions in accordance with its public authority obligations; and that staff be provided with training on what is relevant material for inclusion in an individual's clinical records. The last recommendation was made after the Commission reviewed the man's clinical records and found that detailed notes had been made about his meeting with Commission staff in relation to his complaint.
Healthcare for child with separated parents
A woman complained that a health service provider told her she must attend a joint consultation with her ex-partner regarding goal setting for their child's care, or her child would be discharged from the service. The woman had explained to the provider that the relationship had broken down and she did not feel safe attending a joint meeting with her ex-partner. When the Commission contacted the service, the service proposed cancelling the joint session and postponing services until both parents agreed in writing to the proposed goals. But the provider subsequently contacted the Commission to advise that they had become aware the woman had also complained to Ahpra, and they would no longer provide a service to the child.
The Commission was concerned the provider had excluded the child from the service because of the complaint and did not take steps to ensure continuity of care for the child. In jointly considering the matter with the relevant Board a decision was made to issue the practitioner with a caution in relation to the decision to deny care to the woman's child; not placing the interests and wellbeing of the child first; making no provision for continuity of care; and failing to ensure the complaint did not adversely affect the child's care.
Delayed diagnosis
A woman raised concerns about a delay in diagnosis which resulted in a permanent injury to her child. The Commission sought a response from the hospital and the doctor involved.
The doctor's statement outlined his management and provided a rationale for his decision-making. On review it was found that the information in the doctor's statement did not align with the information found in the clinical records. The Commission and the Medical Board jointly decided to caution the doctor.
The Commission facilitated a conciliation conference. However, the parties were unable to reach agreement and a personal injury claim was commenced.
Alleged breach of health privacy
A woman complained that staff breached her privacy during an inpatient admission by disclosing information about her to an individual who called the hospital inquiring about her. The woman also raised concerns about her post-operative care and her dietary requirements not being met.
The Commission sought a response from the hospital. The hospital reviewed the woman's concerns and its processes. It acknowledged that staff incorrectly assumed the woman agreed to information about her being given to the caller. It provided an explanation about the aspects of care that were of concern and also acknowledged there were instances where the woman was given meals that did not meet her needs.
The hospital apologised to the woman and agreed to waive the remainder of her account in recognition of her experience.
National Disability Insurance Scheme interface with delays in hospital discharge
Concerns were raised with the Commission about a man's involuntary hospital admission as a result of a breach of a psychiatric treatment order (PTO). The man had previously been successfully living in the community without any recent hospital admissions. A risk assessment conducted by the health service provider changed arrangements for his daily medication, recommending that community supports be engaged to provide the man with daily medication administration.
A community provider was engaged to provide medication administration support however they were being funded from the man's NDIS plan. The funds available, which were not for medication administration, were exhausted and the medication administration support ceased. The health service provider was advised several months prior to this that the funding would cease and that the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) had advised that the man's NDIS plan could not be used to fund involuntary community-based medication administration.
The solution proposed by the health service provider was for the man to attend a chemist for his medication administration. However, he was unable to manage this arrangement. When he did not attend the nominated chemist, he was admitted to hospital on an involuntary basis. The man remains in the care of the health service provider and is unable to return home because the health service provider maintains the view that medication administration support should be funded by the man's NDIS plan which has declined to fund this service, noting the funds in his NDIS plan were initially approved for other purposes. Noting the passage of time and the ongoing limitations on the man's freedom of movement, the Commission recommended that arrangements be made for medication administration support in community. The provider responded, stating that they noted the recommendation but no resolution of the matter has been reached.
Discharge planning concerns
A man contacted the Commission to raise concerns that his wife, who had suffered a stroke, was about to be discharged from hospital before she was able to talk or move independently. The man told the Commission his wife had not received adequate rehabilitation and her needs for managing at home had not been adequately assessed. He was concerned about the potential impact on his wife's long-term recovery if she were discharged before receiving these supports.
The Commission contacted the hospital to request information about the discharge process.
A review was undertaken and it was decided the woman could stay as an inpatient for a period of time to receive further rehabilitation and to enable appropriate discharge planning. The hospital arranged a family meeting to discuss the family's situation and the range of supports needed to enable her to return home.
Access to child and adolescent mental health services
A woman complained that a child and adolescent mental health service discontinued her child from their service because the child had an NDIS package. The NDIS package does not cover psychiatric care. The Commission contacted the provider and facilitated a conciliation between the parties. The service provider agreed to ensure staff are provided with training regarding the interface between the NDIS and health systems, specifically in relation to children and young people requiring services and therapies for the treatment of a mental illness or psychiatric condition. The service provider also agreed to continue treating the woman's child until they were able to be transitioned to another appropriate service.
Incorrect medication dispensed by pharmacist
A woman lodged a complaint about incorrect medication being dispensed by a pharmacist. She said her prescription was mistakenly changed from a medication to manage indigestion to an antidepressant by a pharmacy. She then attended a different pharmacy who continued to dispense the incorrect medication. She suffered adverse health outcomes because of the change in medication and lodged a complaint against the second pharmacy.
The Commission and the Pharmacy Board of Australia jointly decided to caution the pharmacist who had continued to dispense the incorrect medication.
The parties attended conciliation and the pharmacy undertook to implement changes to dispensing procedures and conduct further staff training. The pharmacy invited the complainant to take a tour of the pharmacy once the changes had been implemented. The pharmacy also made a $10,000 payment to the complainant to resolve the complaint.