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 201701739

  • Case ref:
    201701739
  • Date:
    July 2018
  • Body:
    East Dunbartonshire Health and Social Care Partnership
  • Sector:
    Health and Social Care
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    policy / administration

Summary

Ms C received treatment at a dental service run by the partnership and was unhappy that, for one instance of specific dental treatment, the partnership referred her treatment to the Practitioner Services Division (PSD) for approval. Ms C said that if she had been a patient at a high street dentist, she would not have needed the treatment referred.

We took independent advice from a dental adviser. We found that both high street dentists and the partnership's dental service were regulated in exactly the same way, including carrying out treatments in line with the Statement of Dental Remuneration (SDR). The SDR sets out the rules defining the types of filling, denture or other restoration, and what type of material can be used. It also defines the timing of treatment types and the costs of those treatments. Some types of material, or restoration, are not included in the SDR, and so require prior approval from PSD.

The treatment Ms C wanted was not included in the SDR and, therefore, the partnership had to apply to PSD for approval. This was not a policy of the parternship's making, but applies across Scotland. We concluded that the partnership acted reasonably in referring Ms C's treatment to PSD for approval, and we did not uphold her complaint.

Updated: December 2, 2018