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 201600417

  • Case ref:
    201600417
  • Date:
    May 2017
  • Body:
    Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board - Acute Services Division
  • Sector:
    Health
  • Outcome:
    Some upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    communication / staff attitude / dignity / confidentiality

Summary

Mrs C complained about the treatment provided to her by the board at two appointments regarding her breast implants at Cannisburn Plastic Surgery Unit at Victoria Infirmary. Mrs C complained that at the first appointment she had not been offered a chaperone and had not been introduced to the trainee doctor who was present during her appointment. She also complained that at the second appointment the doctor had examined her without discussing her problems first. Mrs C said that she had not been offered appropriate medical treatment for the problems she had been having with her breast implants and she further complained about the way the board handled her complaint.

During our investigation we took independent medical advice from a consultant plastic surgeon. We found that, while Mrs C and the consultant's accounts of the first appointment differed, it was not recorded whether any discussion regarding a chaperone took place. This was contrary to national guidance issued by the General Medical Council in relation to intimate examinations. We therefore upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint. During our investigation, the board had implemented local guidance regarding these issues which we considered reasonable, but we also recommended an apology be given to Mrs C.

With regards to Mrs C's second appointment, we did not identify evidence to suggest that the appointment was not carried out in a reasonable manner. We found that Mrs C had been offered appropriate clinical care for the issues she was having with her breast implants. We also found that the board had made efforts to deal with her complaint in a timely manner. Therefore we did not uphold these aspects of Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

  • apologise for the failings identified in this investigation.

Updated: March 13, 2018