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 201501972

  • Case ref:
    201501972
  • Date:
    June 2016
  • Body:
    Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board
  • Sector:
    Health
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    clinical treatment / diagnosis

Summary

Ms C, who works for an advice agency, complained on behalf of Mrs A. Mrs A said that her husband (Mr A) had been provided with inadequate care during an admission to Glasgow Royal Infirmary. Mrs A believed that Mr A had not been provided with appropriate antibiotics and that there were delays in providing him with medication. Mr A had undergone surgery, but had subsequently deteriorated. He had suffered a heart attack at the start of visiting hours and Mrs A had to wait in a day room. Mr A had subsequently died before Mrs A was able to see him.

We took independent medical advice on Mr A's care and treatment. The adviser said Mr A had suffered from a serious heart attack, as well as kidney problems. Although there were instances when he did not receive medication promptly, these did not impact on his prognosis, or the outcome of his treatment. Mr A had suffered two major heart attacks in succession on the day he died. All reasonable resuscitation techniques had been tried, and it was reasonable that Mrs A was not allowed in to see Mr A whilst resuscitation was being attempted.

We found that Mr A had received reasonable clinical care and treatment and the delays in administering medicine had been investigated and addressed appropriately by the board. We therefore did not uphold the complaint.

Updated: March 13, 2018