Miss A complained about care provided to her by the Health Board’s Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery Department (“the Maxillofacial Department”). We investigated specifically whether the decision of the Consultant Maxillofacial Surgeon (“the Consultant”) responsible for Miss A’s care to discharge her from the Maxillofacial Department on 28 November 2023 and the subsequently formulated discharge plan were clinically appropriate. We found that the decision of the Consultant to discharge Miss A was reasonable and that it was appropriate not to offer further injections of botulinum toxin (commonly known as botox: a neurotoxic protein which in the context of jaw disorders is used to temporarily relax overactive jaw muscles). This complaint was not upheld.
We also investigated whether the rationale given for the decision not to accept a request for a second opinion (an opinion about a person’s health condition from a different doctor) 2 months after discharge was clinically appropriate. We found that the Health Board’s response to the request for a second opinion was appropriate, taking into account that the request was ambiguous and that appropriate clinical reasoning was given to explain the decision not to provide further care under the Maxillofacial Department. This complaint was also not upheld.