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 202408872

  • Case ref:
    202408872
  • Date:
    May 2026
  • Body:
    Glasgow City Health and Social Care Partnership
  • Sector:
    Health and Social Care
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    Other

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment provided to their adult child (A). A experienced a decline in mental health and was referred to their local community mental heath team by their GP. A was in contact with mental health services for a period of approximately three months before dying by suicide.

C complained that the board had not reasonably listened to their concerns about A. C also complained about the board’s assessment and management of risk for A, A’s diagnosis and medications.

The board completed a Significant Adverse Event Review (SAER) of the care and treatment provided in the six months prior to A’s death. The review concluded that, overall, appropriate care was provided by mental health services. The review identified some improvements and recognised that communication between A’s family and the consultant psychiatrist was poor. The review found that the issues identified did not contribute to A’s death.

We took independent advice from a consultant psychiatrist. We found that the care and treatment provided to A was reasonable, including the assessment and management of risk for A, A’s diagnosis, the prescription of medications and the board’s handling of concerns from A’s family. We found some shortcomings in documentation. We found that the Board’s SAER was reasonable, as the standard of the review was good and the recommendations made by the review were appropriate, however, the review process took significantly longer than timescales stated in the guidance for SAERs, for which the board apologised. On balance, we did not uphold C’s complaint.

Updated: May 20, 2026