Patient list issues: Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board
Report date
09/11/2023
Subject
Patient list issues
Outcome
Not Upheld
Case ref number
202205528
Report type
"Ymchwiliodd yr Ombwdsmon i gŵyn gan Mrs M am ofal orthodontig (mae orthodonteg yn gangen ddeintyddol arbenigol sy’n ymwneud â thrin afreoleidd-dra a datblygiad y dannedd, y genau a’r wyneb) ei mab, B, gan Fwrdd Iechyd Prifysgol Betsi Cadwaladr (“y Bwrdd Iechyd”). Roedd yr ymchwiliad wedi ystyried yn benodol a oedd yr oedi cyn i B gael ei weld gan wasanaeth orthodontig y Bwrdd Iechyd yn afresymol. Canfu’r Ombwdsmon, er bod B wedi aros am fwy na’r amser a argymhellir rhwng atgyfeirio a thriniaeth i gael ei apwyntiad cyntaf fel claf allanol i drafod y driniaeth, roedd yr effaith ar B wedi’i lliniaru gan y ffaith bod y driniaeth sydd ei hangen arno (llawdriniaeth y genau) fel arfer yn cael ei gwneud pan fydd y genau wedi stopio tyfu. Ni fyddai’r math yma o lawdriniaeth yn cael ei gwneud nes iddo gyrraedd 18 oed (a dim ond yn ddiweddar y cyrhaeddodd yr oed hwnnw). Ar y sail hon, roedd yr Ombwdsmon yn fodlon bod y flaenoriaeth brysbennu ar gyfer yr atgyfeiriad yn briodol, nad oedd brys i B gael ei weld ar ôl yr atgyfeiriad o ystyried natur ac amserlen y driniaeth sy’n ofynnol, a bod yr amser aros o 3 blynedd yn briodol yn glinigol yn achos B. Ni chafodd y gŵyn ei chadarnhau." Non-public interest report issued: complaint not upheld
Relevant body
Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board
The Ombudsman investigated a complaint from Mrs M about her son, B’s, orthodontic care (orthodontics is a specialist branch of dentistry concerned with treating irregularities and development of the teeth, jaw and face) by Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board (“the Health Board”). The investigation specifically considered whether the delay in B being seen by the Health Board’s orthodontic service was unreasonable.
The Ombudsman found that whilst B had waited beyond the recommended referral to treatment time for his first outpatient appointment to discuss treatment, the impact on B was mitigated by the fact that the treatment he requires (jaw surgery) is normally done when the jaw stops growing. This type of surgery would not be carried out until he reached 18 years of age (and he has only done so recently). On this basis, the Ombudsman was satisfied that the triage prioritisation for the referral was appropriate, there was no immediate urgency for B to be seen following the referral given the nature and timescale of the treatment required, and that, in B’s case, the 3-year waiting time was clinically appropriate. The complaint was not upheld.