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 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

Investigation Report 200600725

  • Report no:
    200600725
  • Date:
    July 2008
  • Body:
    Lanarkshire NHS Board
  • Sector:
    Health

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns that his wife (Mrs C) was misdiagnosed during two admissions at Hairmyres Hospital (the Hospital) in 2004, that she was afforded poor clinical and nutritional care at the Hospital during admissions in 2004 and 2005, that record-keeping and communication between staff in relation to Mrs C's care was poor and that Lanarkshire NHS Board (the Board) did not take appropriate action as a result of Mrs C's experiences and Mr C's subsequent complaints.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:
(a) Mrs C was misdiagnosed during two admissions at the Hospital (not upheld);
(b) Mrs C was afforded poor clinical and nursing care at the Hospital (partially upheld to the extent that Mrs C should have been advised on 6 October 2004 that it was unlikely that the promised visit by the surgical team would be able to be made);
(c) Mrs C was not given appropriate nutritional care at the Hospital (not upheld);
(d) the Hospital's record-keeping in relation to Mrs C was poor (not upheld);
(e) communication between the Hospital's staff in relation to Mrs C was poor (partially upheld to the extent that the prioritisation of Mrs C's endoscopy was not adequate following the observations made during her second admission); and
(f) the Board did not take appropriate action as a result of Mrs C's experience and Mr C's subsequent complaints (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:
(i) apologise to Mr C that Mrs C was not advised timeously that it was unlikely that the visit by the surgical team would be able to be made;
(ii) remind staff of the importance of keeping patients informed in these circumstances;
(iii) apologise to Mr C for the insufficient urgency attached to the request for Mrs C's endoscopy; and
(iv) audit their referral process to satisfy themselves that the urgency of a referral is clear at all times.

The Board have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Updated: December 11, 2018