Any point complaining about a hospital department?

kuepper

After a heart attack and cardiac MRI scan cardiologist 'A' said my condition could be managed by medication 'X' and said I'd get another appointment to see how things were in a couple of months. I asked if I could still travel abroad as I'm a frequent traveller and he said I could. I got a date for a follow up appointment but unfortunately it was for a date when I had booked a holiday. When I told the hospital they switched it to a telephone appointment the day before my holiday was due to start. There had been no change in my condition nor had I had any other tests since the MRI scan ie there was no new information about me. When I was called it was a different cardiologist 'B' on the phone and I was advised not to travel anywhere until I had an angiogram and I was told to commence 2 additional medications in addition to 'X'. So I had to cancel my holiday for the following day and then later another holiday had to be cancelled whilst I waited for the angiogram. I got quite depressed and lost a lot of confidence because I wondered if my condition was actually worse than I had been advised previously by cardiologist 'A'.

I wrote to cardiologist 'B' and asked why the angiogram and additional medications were necessary when nothing had changed since my MRI scan and cardiologist 'A' had not made any reference to the possibility of an angiogram nor additional medication. I got a reply from cardiologist 'B' that they wouldn't comment on what cardiologist 'A' had determined. I started taking the 2 new medications but soon started having dizzy spells especially whenever I stood up. I contacted my GP and cardiology about this after my angiogram and was advised by cardiologist 'A' to stop taking them which I did. Cardiologist 'A' also reiterated that I was fit to travel (which the consultant undertaking the angiogram had also stated).

So I am back on the exact same pathway as I was months ago as determined by cardiologist 'A' and as far as I can see the pathway determined by cardiologist 'B' was totally unnecessary and the medications prescribed put me in personal danger. Besides losing 2 holidays that I had planned and looked forward to for many months I had to make an insurance claim and though most of the money has been reimbursed I have lost money because of the excesses applied. Also the fact that I made a claim will probably increase my premium at the next renewal in May 2027 or at worst the insurance company will refuse to cover me. It's been a very frustrating experience and I just cannot understand why cardiologist 'B' did what they did when there was no basis for changing anything as far as I can see.

I wondered if complaining to PALS or the Chief Executive of the hospital was justified and whether it would achieve anything or be counter productive.

LightFlare

well - you can write, but what end result are you after ?

Having been through similar type care path over the last 3 years, (and having worked in the NHS myself for 35 years) - some doctors are more risk averse than others.

As for you thinking that the medication “put you in personal danger” - I think that’s a bit of an over reaction. Many cardiac related meds are designed to modify your blood pressure/regulate blood flow etc and I’m sure that dizziness would have been listed on the side effects.

I had some side effects with my meds (still do) but figure they are preferable to dropping down dead again

Honestly - the time to query the procedure and additional meds would have been at the time they were suggested.

** edit

Having looked at your previous posts - it looks/sounds as if the first doctor was maybe a little too lax in his/her advice and diagnosis and the 2nd one was a bit more on the ball.

StewedApple

Think of your treatment as like the soup of the day - you gotta roll with it.

GrubbyGirl_2

I'm saying this as someone who worked in a clinical role in the NHS for 42 years. Be mindful that any complaint made against cardiologist B may in fact become a problem for cardiologist A. You are assuming B is wrong when in fact it could be A and a complaint may put scrutiny on him which could end up destroying your relationship with him.

Medications have side effects and need to be tweeked to get the right ones for you. To be honest I think it more likely A that could be in the wrong and hasn't given you the most comprehensive and up to date treatment. I also think he was wrong for suggesting it's OK to travel so soon after a heart attack and I'm amazed your travel insurance is still covering you, assuming of course you have told them.

A complaint could end up with both cardiologists not wanting to treat you. Personally I would let sleeping dogs lie - and make sure your insurance knows all of your medical history because if you have another heart attack abroad you could find yourself not covered and that could be a very expensive mistake.

LightFlare

Having pondered a bit more - a gentle enquiry may suffice.

Just to:

a) make you feel you have somewhat taken action

b) to raise your disappointment at having had 2 very different approaches to your situation that caused you some additional stress and ?financial loss

You’ll probably get the usual “we are sorry, will investigate etc etc response but if you keep it away from the language of “official complaint” then I don’t see there being any negative outcome for your future care.

Sounds as if B is a better option than A

PocketCompass

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6683990/any-point-complaining-about-a-hospital-department

Given that you've had two cardiologists give you such different advice based apparently on the same information, I'd be tempted to get a third independent opinion before making any firm conclusions about whether B's treatment was unnecessary. That doesn't mean you shouldn't complain – I'd certainly want an explanation for why the advice changed so drastically – but a third opinion might help establish whether B had a medical reason for taking a more cautious approach that simply wasn't properly explained to you.

StewedApple

I do think a conversation with your cardiologist is your best port of call. Speaking to them will allow you to build a rapport, understand their thinking about your treatment, and build trust going forward.

It's perfectly possible that both cardiologists agree on your treatment but have different views on the timing of the drug regime. You may find that at another point Cardiologist A will want to introduce the drugs Cardiologist B has already tried.

This may be more about timing than anything else.

Renfrewman

My experience of Consultants after workng in the NHS for 30 years is that they can't even agree to disagree.

strawb_shortcake

I would say not all heart attacks are equal, the severity and impact will vary from person to person - such as whether it was an N Stemi or a STEMI and I say this as the wife of a STEMI survivor.

One may be easier to travel after than another as well as get travel insurance.

Medication can also take some time to get used too, 5/6 years on and my Husband's stations still don't really suit him.

Rather than complain, I'd be inclined to speak to one of your cardiologist's or GP and explain the conflicting views you've had.

born_again

When you next go back to A or B question as to why such a difference in treatment & advice?

Also could B be a underling of A?

MyRealNameToo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82143891#Comment_82143891

It depends… saw a private consultant whilst awaiting the NHS appointment. Everyone thought the private consultant's diagnosis was odd so decided to see the NHS one anyway. Turned out he had trained under the private consultant and clearly idolised him so wasnt going to go against the diagnosis.

Having been to med school, its definitely an art not a science and so certain doctors will prefer one course of treatment than another. Its not that one is right or wrong, simply a difference of opinion on an art form. I'm myself currently oscillating as need a medication for one problem but a side effect of it creates another problem (that increases risks not an immediate impact). Some doctors are willing to accept the risk to treat the main problem others want to manage the risks and accept the worsening of the existing condition. I'm ideally looking for the 3rd path that reduces the dose of the medication but gives it more frequently but thats wasteful as the medication only comes in one volume and isnt an officially recognised path but then the risk adverse doctors are already going off path my leaving the gap between treatments beyond the recommended maximum.

Unless a consultant takes a personal interest in you then you will always get the random registrar/consultant on the day. If you do get a consultant that consistently deals with you every time you lose the chopping and changing but instead dont get to see that there may be an alternative view/options.

Mrs in the past was involved in a couple of groups that deal with some under treated conditions. A big part of the group was identifying the "good" doctors for these conditions and how to get infront of them rather than some random consultant who may be more of a generalist or favour a treatment path the group didnt think was right.