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 201301616

  • Case ref:
    201301616
  • Date:
    May 2014
  • Body:
    Borders NHS Board
  • Sector:
    Health
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    clinical treatment / diagnosis

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf of her partner (Mr A) about a procedure to remove his gallbladder at Borders General Hospital. Mrs C said they had originally been told that the procedure would be performed by keyhole surgery but that, if complications arose, it would be performed as open surgery, and Mr A would need to be kept in hospital for several days. Mrs C said that when she phoned the hospital on the day of the operation, she was told complications had arisen. When she visited Mr A after his surgery, he was in great pain, which she did not believe was being managed properly. When Mrs C visited the next day, she found Mr A being prepared for a scan. Mrs C said she had repeatedly asked nurses and medical staff about Mr A's wound and the frequency of his dressing changes. She believed that it was only as a result of her questioning that Mr A's wound was examined, leading to Mr A's transfer to a specialist unit.

We took independent advice from one of our medical advisers, a specialist in gallbladder surgery. He explained that Mr A's procedure had not been converted into open surgery, due to the complications that the surgeon had identified, and that this was an appropriate course of action. The notes of the operation showed that there were significant difficulties in performing the operation, due to existing damage to the gallbladder. The adviser said that the notes also showed that the care plan for Mr A was to perform a scan to identify the complications from the operation, and to consult with a specialist unit. The adviser said that the surgeon had acted appropriately and in Mr A's best interests when complications occurred. We found no evidence that Mr A had not been appropriately treated, and did not uphold Mrs C's complaint, as we found no evidence to support her claim that Mr A was only transferred due to her intervention.

Updated: March 13, 2018