Thursday 22 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 201407186

  • Case ref:
    201407186
  • Date:
    January 2016
  • Body:
    A Medical Practice in the Western Isles NHS Board area
  • Sector:
    Health
  • Outcome:
    Upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    clinical treatment / diagnosis

Summary

Mr C complained about a GP during a home visit deciding not to refer his wife (Mrs C) to hospital. Mr C was particularly concerned that Mrs C had been treated with steroids during a recent hospital admission for a chest infection, and this was likely to affect her diabetes.

The GP said that, during the home visit, they considered Mrs C was suffering from diabetes and a flare-up of her chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD - a disease of the lungs in which the airways become narrowed). However, they said there was no evidence of a chest infection. The GP said the steroid treatment was important for Mrs C’s COPD (although it had a negative impact on her diabetes control) and they encouraged Mr C to continue this treatment. The GP considered their actions were appropriate.

After taking independent medical advice from a GP adviser, we upheld Mr C’s complaint. In relation to Mr C’s concerns about the steroid treatment, we found that the GP acted appropriately by advising Mr C to continue this (as the benefit to Mrs C’s COPD outweighed the impact on her diabetes). However, the adviser explained that Mrs C had lower oxygen saturation levels than when tested 11 days earlier, and the GP should have arranged further investigation of this (which would usually be done in a hospital setting).

Recommendations

We recommended that the practice:

  • apologise to Mr C for the failings our investigation found;
  • ensure that the GP familiarises themself with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline on COPD, in particular in relation to the assessment of oxygen saturation; and
  • ensure that the GP reflects on the findings of our investigation at their next annual appraisal.

Updated: March 13, 2018