Wednesday 21 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 201304165

  • Case ref:
    201304165
  • Date:
    September 2014
  • Body:
    Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board
  • Sector:
    Health
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    clinical treatment / diagnosis

Summary

As part of a research project, Mrs C had a knee replacement at Glasgow Royal Infirmary. The operation, which was robot-assisted, replaced only the part of her knee which was damaged. As this type of surgery is carried out on a smaller area than traditional knee replacement operations, recovery should be faster. However, after the surgery, Mrs C complained about the care and treatment she received. She questioned whether she had been fit for discharge and about the number of cancelled clinic appointments after the operation. She said that nerve endings were damaged during the operation, which had hindered her recovery. She also told us that she was in pain and had to give up her job.

During our investigation, we obtained independent advice from a medical adviser, who is a consultant in orthopaedic and trauma surgery. We also considered all the available documentation and Mrs C's relevant medical records. Having done so, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Our adviser said that the operation was carried out appropriately and the knee implant was well positioned. Before the operation, appropriate investigations were made, and appropriate information and consent were given. Later, Mrs C was properly assessed before she was discharged from hospital. The adviser said, however, that there is a known outcome of this operation for some patients, who will be left with worse pain than before. Mrs C fell into this category, and despite things going well, she was one of a small number of patients left with residual pain. While it was noted that two of Mrs C's follow-up appointments were cancelled, another was arranged and we found no evidence that this delay affected the outcome of her treatment.

Updated: March 13, 2018