Friday 16 October - Sunday 18 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 202311847

  • Case ref:
    202311847
  • Date:
    June 2026
  • Body:
    Borders NHS Board
  • Sector:
    Health
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    Diagnosis

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment provided to their late spouse (A) by the board. A, who suffered from Polycythaemia Rubra Vera (PV, a blood cancer), died in hospital. At the time of their admission they were seen to be suffering from anaemia, likely as a side effect of their PV medication.

Following a post-mortem, a pathologist noted that A had developed sepsis due to a bacterial infection and that A’s PV had progressed into leukaemia. C complained that the leukaemia was not diagnosed prior to A’s death, and questioned whether the care and treatment provided to A had been reasonable.

We took independent advice from two appropriately qualified advisers: a haematologist (specialist in blood disorders) and a consultant geriatrician (specialist in medicine of the elderly).

We found that from a haematology perspective, A’s care and treatment was reasonable. Appropriate blood tests had been undertaken and A had received appropriate treatment for anaemia. It did not appear that a transformation from PV to leukaemia had been missed.

From a general medical perspective, we found that the approach taken to diagnosis, and the treatment plan provided were also reasonable, and that appropriate care was provided in response to A developing sepsis. Overall, we did not consider that A’s medical care and treatment had been unreasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold C’s complaint.

Updated: June 17, 2026