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 201402779

  • Case ref:
    201402779
  • Date:
    June 2015
  • Body:
    Lanarkshire NHS Board
  • Sector:
    Health
  • Outcome:
    Some upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    clinical treatment / diagnosis

Summary

Mrs C said that although her husband (Mr C) first attended Wishaw General Hospital for investigations in February 2013, it was not until early June 2013 that he was advised that he had a terminal illness. Mr C died a few weeks later after receiving his diagnosis.

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment Mr C received and that it had taken an unreasonable time to provide him with a diagnosis. She said that communication, particularly with the family, had been poor.

We took independent advice from consultants in colorectal surgery and radiology, and also from one of our nursing advisers. We found that Mr C's medical care and nursing treatment had been reasonable so we did not uphold Mrs C’s complaints about this. However, there had been a delay in making a diagnosis because a scan taken in April 2013 had shown subtle changes that had been overlooked. As a consequence, Mr C could have been diagnosed earlier (although, his outcome would have remained the same) and his palliative care started sooner. Our investigation also showed that communication with the family had been poor causing even further distress to the family at a difficult time. In light of what we found, we upheld Mrs C’s complaints about the board’s communication and the delay in diagnosis.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

  • make a formal apology;
  • confirm to us that as a consequence of their discrepancy meeting, they are satisfied that there is an increased liklihood of such an abnormality being detected in the future;
  • make specific recognition of the failures in communication by way of a formal apology; and
  • provide us with details of specific actions they have taken to show that staff have learned from the shortcomings in this case.

Updated: March 13, 2018