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 201607122

  • Case ref:
    201607122
  • Date:
    May 2017
  • Body:
    Tayside NHS Board
  • Sector:
    Health
  • Outcome:
    Upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    clinical treatment / diagnosis

Summary

Mr C complained that, following a collapse in the street where he vomited blood, his son (Mr A) was taken to Ninewells Hospital where he was discharged after treatment for a head injury. Later that day Mr A was again found collapsed in the street and he was again taken to Ninewells Hospital where he died that evening. Mr C noted from the post-mortem report that the cause of death was recorded as a massive gastrointestinal haemorrhage (bleed) and said that had this been identified during the first visit to hospital then the outcome may have been different.

We obtained independent advice from a consultant in emergency medicine about the treatment provided during the first attendance at hospital. We found that the assessment of the cause of Mr A's collapse was reasonable. We also found that the assessment of his head injury was reasonable. However, we found that an insufficient risk assessment had been made when considering Mr A's reporting of vomiting blood and as such he should have been admitted to hospital on the first attendance or kept in for a longer period of observation. However, even if this had been case we could not say with certainty that the outcome would have been different, but we acknowledged that Mr A would have had an earlier review by clinical staff. We upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

  • apologise to Mr C for the failings identified in this investigation; and
  • share our report with the relevant staff so that they can reflect on their actions.

Updated: March 13, 2018