Tuesday 20 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 201905840

  • Case ref:
    201905840
  • Date:
    July 2020
  • Body:
    A Medical Practice in the Fife NHS Board area
  • Sector:
    Health
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    clinical treatment / diagnosis

Summary

C attended the practice a number of times over several years with recurring urinary tract infections (UTIs). C said that in that period, the practice had failed to undertake a test for a prostate specific antigen (PSA test) despite C's repeated requests. When the practice did agree to undertake a PSA test the result for this was high and caused the practice to urgently refer C to the local NHS board's urology department for further investigation. Subsequently, C was informed that they had prostate cancer. C complained that the treatment provided by the practice was unreasonable.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that the practice provided reasonable treatment to C. We considered that C's condition of recurrent UTIs had been identified by the practice, who appropriately noted that this should be managed by the urology department. The referral to this department was in line with General Medical Council's Good Medical Practice as the ongoing symptom management of the patient lay outwith the practice's professional expertise. We concluded that the care provided by the practice was reasonable. We did not uphold this complaint.

Updated: July 22, 2020