Tuesday 20 October: Complaint form offline

The supplier of our case management system has confirmed that they are experiencing a significant technical issue.

At present, we have no access to the case management system and we are currently unable to provide updates on existing cases.

We are planning on the basis that this could continue for a period of time including for the remainder of this week.

If you would like to check if your complaint is ready for the SPSO or enquire about making a new complaint, please complete our Complaint Checker.  

Please be assured we are doing all we can and will provide updates on our website. 

For an all service update: Service update | SPSO

Decision Report 201102074

  • Case ref:
    201102074
  • Date:
    September 2013
  • Body:
    Grampian NHS Board
  • Sector:
    Health
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    clinical treatment / diagnosis

Summary

Mrs C received hospital treatment for a cerebrospinal fluid (CSF - the fluid that surrounds the brain and spinal cord) leak in 2009. As other procedures had been unsuccessful, a shunt (a device inserted to transport excess fluid elsewhere) was inserted, but Mrs C believed this to have been too short, and that this contributed to her subsequent stroke.

She complained that the treatment she received to try to repair the CSF leak was unreasonable, that it took too long to identify that she had suffered a stroke, and that the board unreasonably failed to tell her in advance that there was a risk that the treatment might lead to a stroke.

After taking independent advice from a medical adviser, although we recognised Mrs C's concerns, we did not uphold her complaints. After inspecting Mrs C's medical records, the adviser said that her care and treatment was entirely reasonable, and that the shunt was not too short, but had probably moved, which is a common and recognised complication of that procedure. He was clearly of the opinion that this could not have caused the stroke. He also said that there was no sign of delay in identifying that Mrs C had experienced a stroke, and no identifiable risk that the treatment might lead to one. It was not unreasonable that Mrs C was not warned of this.

Updated: March 13, 2018