Monday 19 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 take new Public Service Complaints or provide updates on cases. We are planning on the basis that this could continue for a period of time including next week.

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 202402634

  • Case ref:
    202402634
  • Date:
    December 2025
  • Body:
    Lanarkshire NHS Board
  • Sector:
    Health
  • Outcome:
    Upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    Clinical treatment / diagnosis

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment provided to their parent (A). A was admitted to hospital with a suspected stroke, confusion and poor mobility. A CT scan was performed but the results were not reviewed until a few days later. The result was discussed with other specialists and a further scan was requested. A’s warfarin treatment (blood thinning) was reversed because A’s condition had deteriorated. C was concerned that A’s condition was not properly recognised as a stroke and that imaging of A’s head was not reviewed. Consequently A’s blood thinning medication was not stopped promptly.

The board carried out a Significant Adverse Event Review (SAER) which identified delays in reviewing A’s scan, and a lack of clarity between medical staff over who was responsible for organising tests for A, as well as poor communication. C felt the SAER lacked rigour and failed to address all the issues in A’s care.

We took independent advice from a consultant geriatrician (specialist in medicine of the elderly). We found that the SAER lacked detail and did not contain sufficiently clear recommendations to ensure the failures in A’s care did not reoccur. It also did not adequately address the decision making around A’s scan or the level of awareness amongst clinicians of the scan being performed.

During our investigation the board provided further evidence of the feedback provided to staff, and the actions taken in response to the incident involving A. We found that these were reasonable and proportionate. The board accepted that the SAER had not adequately explored all the issues in the case. Therefore, we upheld C's complaint but did not make any further recommendations.

Updated: December 17, 2025