SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained about the care and treatment that they received from the practice prior to receiving a diagnosis of a cancerous brain tumour, for which C underwent surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy. C had eight consultations at the practice over the course of ten months prior to receiving a referral to the neurology department. We took independent advice from a GP. We found that there was a missed opportunity for the practice to review C in person and consider an earlier neurological referral on the basis of C’s worsening symptoms. We upheld the complaint. During the course of the investigation, the practice acknowledged these failings and took action to address them.

C complained about the care and treatment their spouse (A) received from the practice. A had contacted the practice on several occasions with worsening symptoms including headaches, and problems with vision and mobility. C complained that the practice unreasonably failed to undertake tests or act on results, such as when a discrepancy was found in the power of A's legs. C considered the practice unreasonably treated A for anxiety and failed to recognise there was a serious underlying reason for A's symptoms. A was ultimately found to have a brain tumour and died within a few days of receiving this diagnosis. In responding to C's complaint, the practice provided a letter each from two of the GPs involved in A's care which explained their decision making in respect of the presenting symptoms at the time. The practice also explained they had undertaken a Significant Adverse Event Review (SAER) of A's case for learning and improvement. We took independent advice on the complaint from a GP. We found that A had initially been treated for labyrinthitis (an inner ear infection) and urinary tract infection which was reasonable and in keeping with the symptoms reported by A at the time. We also found that after A was given a new prescription for glasses, it was appropriate to trial the glasses for improvement of the symptoms of headache and light headedness on standing. In relation to A's upper leg weakness, we found that this can occur for many reasons and, in isolation, would not suggest a more serious underlying cause. Referring to the working diagnosis of anxiety, we considered that this was not unreasonable in the circumstances. However, the complaint presents a significant learning opportunity, highlighting the need for recognition that symptoms can deteriorate within a short time, and consideration that confused or difficult reporting of symptoms by the patient could in itself be an indicator of an underlying cause. We considered that the practice had provided a reason

C complained about the care and treatment provided by the practice. C was diagnosed with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS, a condition that affects the function of the ovaries) a number of years ago and had previously had an ovarian cyst removed. Over the following years, C experienced a number of symptoms, including abdominal pain which the practice attributed to irritable bowel syndrome (IBS, a common condition that affects the digestive system). C complained that the practice did not explore a potential link to their PCOS. C attended A&E with severe pain. It was identified that C had a large ovarian cyst which required surgery. C complained that the practice's failure to diagnose the cyst exacerbated their symptoms and led to prolonged pain and discomfort. C also complained about poor postoperative care by the practice. The practice confirmed they were satisfied that their treatment of C's symptoms was appropriate in the circumstances and explained that the NHS does not offer routine surveillance scans for patients with PCOS or to patients who have a history of cysts. We took independent advice from a GP. We found that prior to C's attendance at A&E, there was no significant evidence of a cyst and in the absence of any other clinical indication it was reasonable to attribute C's symptoms to IBS. With regard to C's concern about the postoperative care provided, we noted that the practice diagnosed an incisional hernia and referred C to the Surgical Admissions Unit where an ultrasound was carried out but failed to show anything. A subsequent CT scan identified three hernias. We concluded that the GP's presumed diagnosis of a hernia was reasonable and therefore C was appropriately referred to the Surgical Admissions Unit. Overall, we were satisfied that the care and treatment provided to C was reasonable and we did not uphold C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 202206401 as a PDF (24.71 KB) Updated: October 18, 2023

C complained about the care and treatment provided to their partner (A). A had been suffering from an extended period of constipation which the District Nursing Team had attempted to treat at home. A's GP referred them to hospital for further treatment. A died following a fall in hospital. C raised a number of concerns about the GP's assessment of A's condition and the decision to refer them to hospital. C said that the GP should have visited A at home, should have considered alternative treatments at home, and that the GP made assumptions about A's wishes and condition. C believed that there were no grounds for admitting A to hospital and that the GP's actions led directly to A's death. We took independent advice from a general practitioner adviser. We found that the care and treatment provided to A was of a reasonable standard. It was not a requirement for the GP to visit A at home prior to referring them for admission. The admission had been discussed with C, and the decision to refer A for hospital admission was a reasonable clinical judgement for the GP to make in the circumstances. The GP's referral had acknowledged C and A's wishes for resuscitation to be attempted and the advice did not consider that there was an unreasonable focus on this in the admission. We found that the care and treatment provided to A was reasonable and that the practice had acted appropriately when considering and responding to C's concerns. We did not uphold C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 202104070 as a PDF (24.5 KB) Updated: June 21, 2023

C complained that the practice failed to refer them for an x-ray following a fall, which contributed to a delay in diagnosing fractured vertebrae. C attended A&E following their injury and then attended the practice a few days later (first consultation). C then had a GP telephone appointment the next day due to ongoing pain (second consultation), and subsequently attended the practice again in person some weeks later (third consultation). C complained that their symptoms were not fully investigated and an obvious bend in their neck was overlooked. We took independent medical advice from a GP. We found that the practice’s actions at the first and second consultations were reasonable in relying on the outcome of the recent A&E assessment, and that an onward referral for x-ray imaging was not indicated at that point. We found, however, that C’s ongoing pain should have been considered persistent by the time of the third consultation, and that their spinal tenderness should have been regarded as significant. We found that these symptoms should have been regarded as ‘red flag’ symptoms (possibly indicative of a more serious pathology), and should have triggered onward referral for imaging assessment. Instead, C was referred for physiotherapy following the third consultation. C subsequently contacted the practice on a fourth occasion to request that this referral be expedited. A GP received this message and concluded that C did not meet the criteria for an urgent referral. The GP did so without taking a history and/or examining C. We found that it was unreasonable to make this decision without evidence. If an examination had been arranged following this fourth contact by C, it may have given rise to an x-ray referral. We concluded that the practice unreasonably missed opportunities to refer C for an x-ray at the third consultation, as well as at the time of C’s subsequent contact regarding the physiotherapy referral. On balance, we upheld this complaint. We no

C complained to us about the care and treatment that they had received from their GP practice. C told us that the practice had failed to carry out appropriate prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing after they found out that C was at increased risk of prostate cancer genetically. They told us that after an initial test, which was normal, there was a delay of around four years in carrying out a further test, at which time the test showed elevated results and they were subsequently diagnosed with cancer. C considered that this delay had a considerable impact on their prognosis, as their cancer had by that time spread, which they had been told was unlikely to have been the case had they been diagnosed earlier. C also complained that the practice had failed to appropriately respond to their concerns about this, both in the way that they had investigated the concerns, and the manner in which they had responded, which C had found to be uncaring. We took independent advice from a GP adviser. We found that the practice had failed to handle C's testing appropriately. In particular, that they unreasonably assessed that regular testing was not required based on guidance intended for those not at increased genetic risk and that they unreasonably failed to seek further advice and clarity from specialist services on the request to consider regular testing. We also noted that when the test was subsequently agreed as part of other blood tests, this was missed in error, and they then failed to identify this had been missed or notify C, leaving them with the impression that this had provided normal results. Therefore, we upheld C's complaint that their testing had been mishandled. Our investigation also found that the practice had not responded reasonably to C's concerns, as the Significant Event Analysis (SEA) they carried out was not of a reasonable standard, and they had failed to provide appropriate apologies for the failures that were identified by their own investigations

C and B complained about the care and treatment that their adult child (A) received from the practice. A had sought advice and treatment for a lack of energy, loss of libido and difficulty gaining weight. They were referred to the metabolic unit in hospital and, subsequently, to an adult eating disorders service. A had been diagnosed with a hormonal deficiency and a number of potential causes for their symptoms were considered. However, A and their family were concerned about the practice's clinical management of A's condition and the lack of a clear diagnosis or effective treatment plan. A subsequently completed suicide. Following a meeting and written correspondence with the practice, C and B remained dissatisfied with a number of aspects of the treatment A received. We took independent advice from a GP. A's case was complex and whilst with hindsight it was clear that A had an underlying mental health condition, a physical cause for their symptoms could not be ruled out. We were satisfied that the practice arranged numerous tests and investigations to explore a physical cause of A's symptoms. Additional tests were carried out by third parties and we found that the practice appropriately reviewed these and communicated clearly with A as to the results, their significance and the next steps in terms of finding a clear diagnosis. We found that the practice considered at an early stage that there may have been a mental health element to A's condition. However, A was not keen to pursue this. We were satisfied that it would have been inappropriate in the circumstances for the practice to push further investigations into A's mental health. We were also satisfied that the practice communicated well with secondary care specialists and managed A's overall diagnostic pathway reasonably. Therefore, we did not uphold these aspects of C and B's complaint. However, we were critical of the practice's communication with C and B. It was A's clear intention that they be

C was a patient of the practice for a number of years where they were treated for thyroid (a gland in the front inside area of the neck) problems and anaemia (a deficiency in the number or quality of red blood cells in the body). C began to experience changes in their behaviour. Following an incident, the police and social work became involved and C was admitted to hospital. C was discharged the following day after a psychiatric assessment. However, C subsequently had to attend court. When gathering information for their court appearance, C obtained a copy of their medical records from the practice. Upon reviewing these, C considered that there had been failures to diagnose deficiencies of vitamin B12 and vitamin D. C also considered that there had been issues with the practice's management of their anaemia and thyroid problems and the long-term prescription of a proton-pump inhibitor (a class of medications that cause a profound and prolonged reduction of stomach acid production). C submitted a formal complaint to the practice regarding their care and treatment and their handling of C's medical records. C said that, whilst the practice responded to their concerns about the medical records, they did not address the complaints about C's care and treatment due to the time that had passed. We took independent advice from a GP. We found that, whilst C did have some abnormalities in their blood tests, these were relatively minor and would not have caused the behavioural changes C experienced. We found that the long-term proton-pump inhibitor prescription was reasonable and that C's thyroid problem was routinely monitored and managed. We found that the practice failed to notify C of their low vitamin D results, but concluded that the implications of this oversight were minimal. We did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint. With regard to the practice's handling of C's complaint, we found that that their decision to rule the complaint as outwith the time limi

C complained about care and treatment provided to their parent (A) by a duty general practitioner (GP) at the practice. C contacted a community nurse team to raise concerns that A's catheter was draining slowly and that there was blood in their urine bag. A nurse visited A at their home later the same day. They changed A's catheter bag and provided advice. After they had left A's home, the nurse discussed their actions with the GP. The GP agreed with the nurse's actions and their assessment of A. Later that evening A's catheter blocked. A was subsequently admitted to hospital and diagnosed with urosepsis (a serious infection of the urinary tract). A subsequently died in hospital. C complained that the GP had failed to visit A despite being provided with information indicating that they had a serious infection. C also complained that the GP failed to provide A with medical treatment. We took independent advice from a GP. We found that the GP acted reasonably and noted that they were not provided with information indicating that A had a serious infection. We found that the GP’s agreement with the treatment and advice provided by the nurse was reasonable in light of the information available to them at the relevant time. We did not uphold C’s complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201910514 as a PDF (56.61 KB) Updated: March 29, 2022

C complained on behalf of their late parent (A) about the care and treatment provided by their GP at the practice. A had been attending the practice with shortness of breath and a persistent cough. An urgent referral for suspected cancer was made, however C considered that the practice should have made the referral sooner. We reviewed the relevant medical records and sought independent advice from a GP. We found that as A was high-risk patient who was failing to respond to antibiotics, an urgent referral to the chest clinic should have been made eleven months earlier and as such, we concluded that the practice failed to correctly follow the Scottish Suspected Cancer Referral guidelines. We upheld the complaint.

C was removed from their GP practice patient list. The practice were contacted by Practitioner Services (part of NHS National Services Scotland who support primary care providers) after this and suggested the practice refer C to the board's Challenging Behaviour General Practice (CBGP). The practice referred C to the CBGP. C complained that the practice had unreasonably referred them to CBGP. C said the practice were not required to refer C to CBGP, did not have a good reason to refer them and did not follow the correct procedure. We found that once the practice’s request to have C removed from their patient list was actioned, they were not obliged to arrange any future care for C. However, Practitioner Services found themselves unable to place C on a patient list of another GP practice in the area. They went back to C’s most recent practice and asked them to refer C to the board’s CBGP. The referral the practice sent meant C might (if the referral was accepted) have access to primary care services. We decided that the decision to refer C to CGBP was reasonable in the circumstances. As such, we did not uphold this complaint. However, we found that the processes in place were not helpful to guiding the situation C found themselves in. Understandably C was left confused about why the referral was made and had to contact the practice themselves to find this out. We passed on our feedback to the relevant health board. Related reading View Decision Report 201910147 as a PDF (24.43 KB) Updated: September 22, 2021

C complained that the practice failed to appropriately investigate their urinary symptoms over a two-month period; in particular, that they failed to take blood tests and arrange a prostate check. C was later admitted to hospital with an acute kidney injury and urinary retention. We took independent medical advice from a GP, who considered that the practice had unreasonably failed to examine C's prostate in light of their persistent urinary symptoms and repeated negative results for infection. Therefore, we concluded that there was a failure to reasonably investigate C's urinary symptoms and we upheld this complaint. However, the practice provided us with evidence that reflection and learning had already taken place through a Significant Event Analysis and we were satisfied that appropriate learning had been demonstrated. We recommended that the practice should apologise to C for the identified failings but made no further recommendations.

C complained on behalf of their late spouse (A) about the treatment provided to them. A had a history of breast cancer and attended the practice with back pain. A was treated for simple back pain with some sciatic nerve irritation (nerve in the lower back area) and prescribed pain relief. A was later diagnosed with kidney failure caused from metastatic disease (secondary cancer) and died. C complained that the practice had failed to give proper consideration to A's history of cancer when assessing their back pain. C considered that an earlier diagnosis may have increased A's life expectancy as treatment could have been commenced earlier. We took independent advice from a GP. We considered that A's symptoms had been reasonably assessed and that A's reoccurrence of cancer was not foreseeable any earlier than diagnosed. When A's presentation changed, appropriate steps were taken, with further investigations and referrals to hospital speciality care. As such, we did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 202003476 as a PDF (24.23 KB) Updated: June 23, 2021

C complained about the care and treatment provided to their parent (A). A, who has vascular dementia and Alzheimer’s, suffered from ill health and C sought medical care and treatment from A’s practice on numerous occasions for what they suspected were urinary tract and chest infections. A had three hospital admissions during this period and C was concerned about the care and treatment provided in particular in the time leading up to each hospital admission. C said that the GPs at the practice focused too much on A’s dementia and unreasonably failed to take C’s concerns about A’s condition seriously. As a result, C said the GPs had failed unreasonably to investigate and treat A’s deteriorating condition including a number of serious infections. We took independent advice from an adviser who specialises in general practice. We found that GPs at the practice had taken C’s concerns seriously and assessed and treated A in a reasonable way. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201803542 as a PDF (24.19 KB) Updated: November 18, 2020

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment her late brother (Mr A) received from the practice. Mr A attended two consultations at the practice as he had experienced shortness of breath on exertion for the previous few weeks. The GP arranged for a chest x-ray and blood tests to be carried out. These tests did not highlight any concerns but Mr A confirmed that his breathing difficulties were ongoing. The GP felt his breathing difficulties could have been caused by angina (chest pain caused by reduced blood flow to the heart muscles) and increased his medication for this with the intention to refer Mr A for more specialist assessment if his symptoms persisted. Mr A died suddenly one week after his second consultation. Following a post-mortem, it was confirmed that the primary cause of death was a pulmonary embolism (a blockage in one of the pulmonary arteries in the lungs, caused by a blood clot). Mrs C complained to the practice and queried why the GP did not look at Mr A's medical history, as this included details of a previous blood clot. In addition to this, Mrs C queried why no further investigation was carried out after the second consultation when Mr A's x-ray results were confirmed as clear. In their response to Mrs C's complaint, the practice concluded that the GP's clinical assessment and decision-making, based on the information at the time, was considered and reasonable. Mrs C was unhappy with this response and brought her complaint to us. We took independent advice from a GP. We found that the care and treatment the practice provided to Mr A was reasonable. We were satisfied that appropriate consideration was given to Mr A's medical history in respect of blood clots when assessing his breathing difficulties. We also concluded that the practice's actions, after Mr A's x-ray results were known, were reasonable and appropriate. We were satisfied that the records indicated the practice had a firm treatment plan in place for Mr A and had clearl

C complained about the care and treatment they received from the practice. C had a history of back pain and attended a consultation at the practice. During the consultation, the GP discussed a number of pain relief medications with C and a prescription was made. Approximately three weeks later, C presented to a hospital and received emergency treatment for cauda equina syndrome (a rare and serious neurological condition that affects the bundle of nerves (cauda equina) at the base of the spine). C raised concern that the practice missed signs of cauda equina syndrome when they attended the practice a number of weeks earlier. They were also unhappy with the treatment provided at the time. We received independent advice from an appropriately qualified adviser. We found that an appropriate assessment was performed during the GP consultation. Having considered the accounts of C and the practice, we concluded that the practice did not miss red flags for cauda equina syndrome. We also considered that the discussion regarding medication and prescription were reasonable. We did not uphold C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201809210 as a PDF (24.26 KB) Updated: June 17, 2020

Mrs C complained about the failure of the practice to refer her late father (Mr A) to hospital skin specialists for investigation of a lesion on his forehead. By the time a referral was made, it was too late to attempt surgery and palliative care was instigated. Mr A had a previous history of skin cancer and Mrs C felt that an early and urgent referral to the skin specialists should have been made. We took independent medical advice from a GP. We found that it was not unreasonable for the practice to have thought that Mr A had a cyst and that it was appropriate to transfer his care to district nursing staff in order that they could dress the wound. When the district nurses requested antibiotics the practice made out an appropriate prescription. It appeared that there was a change in the appearance of the lesion after Mr C had been seen by the practice. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201904055 as a PDF (24.15 KB) Updated: March 18, 2020

Mr C complained to us that his GP practice had unreasonably notified the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) that he had alcohol issues. We found that the practice had previously discussed this matter with Mr C and that it had been reasonable for them to contact the DVLA regarding their concerns about Mr C's health and alcohol intake. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201805856 as a PDF (23.87 KB) Updated: March 18, 2020

Mr C complained about the care which he received from the practice when he reported urinary problems. In particular, he had attended four consultations at the practice to report his symptoms, and despite them carrying out investigations it turned out that he had suffered a prostatic abscess. By the time Mr C was admitted to hospital the abscess had grown to 4cm, and he believed that the GPs involved in his care should have noted the abscess at an earlier stage when it would not have been as large. We took independent advice from a GP. We found that initially Mr C's symptoms were indicative of a urine infection, and when Mr C attended hospital, a subsequent diagnosis of prostatitis was made. Again, the GPs managed this appropriately. It was only when Mr C's clinical condition deteriorated that it was appropriate to refer him to hospital where the final diagnosis was made. We found no evidence of failings or delays by the treating GPs. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201902666 as a PDF (23.83 KB) Updated: November 20, 2019

Mr C complained about the care and treatment his late wife (Mrs A) received from the practice during a number of attendances. We took independent advice from GP adviser. We found that the care provided to Mrs A by the practice, when she presented with a swelling in her groin and a lump on her breast, to be reasonable. Mrs A had also attended the practice with a swelling in her neck. We found that there was a failure by the practice to document a full history relating to the neck swelling, how long it was there for, and to consider further investigation of the swelling and safety netting. We considered this to be below a reasonable standard and upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. However, we also acknowledged that by the time Mrs A presented with the swelling in her groin, she already had incurable cancer. While earlier referral for investigation of the neck swelling could have possibly led to an earlier diagnosis, it was unlikely to have changed Mrs A's overall outcome. Mr C also complained that Mrs A had been treated in an unsympathetic and dismissive manner by the practice, and said that he and Mrs A were unaware that she had suspected heart failure. Our investigation found no evidence of this. Mr C also complained about the way in which the practice had responded to his complaint. We found that the practice responded to Mr C within a reasonable time, and did not identify any inaccurate information in their response. We also acknowledged that the practice had offered to meet with Mr C. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Mrs C complained that she and her family were unreasonably removed from the practice list of patients. Mrs C said that she had no trust in the service provided by the practice and that she had never received explanations about what diagnoses had been reached about her numerous medical conditions. We took independent advice from a GP. We found that prior to removing Mrs C and her family from the patient list, the practice had repeatedly made an offer of a meeting with Mrs C to discuss her concerns. When Mrs C failed to accept the offers, the practice viewed the doctor/patient relationship had irretrievably broken down and that it was in Mrs C's best interests to register with another medical practice. The hope was that she could build up a good doctor/patient relationship with her new practice. We did not uphold the complaint. Mrs C also complained that it was unreasonable to have her family removed from the patient list as well. Guidance suggests that members of a patient's family should not be removed automatically from the practice list where there is a breakdown in the doctor/patient relationship. However, in instances where children and/or carers are involved, it is appropriate to remove the whole family, as this will allow better communication and the sharing of information where all family members are registered with the same practice. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201804640 as a PDF (24.01 KB) Updated: September 18, 2019

Mrs C complained about the treatment she received from the practice for an infection in her leg. Mrs C attended an out-of-hours surgery over the weekend prior to attending her local practice on the Monday. The practice adjusted Mrs C's medications and arranged a follow-up appointment with a nurse for wound dressing. Mrs C's leg grew worse and a GP was called to her home. The GP arranged for Mrs C's admission and further assessment at a hospital. We took independent medical advice from a GP. We found that Mrs C's treatment by the practice was reasonable and found no failings in the treatment offered. Therefore, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201803525 as a PDF (23.65 KB) Updated: June 19, 2019

Mr C complained about the care and treatment his daughter (Ms A) received from the practice. Ms A contacted the practice about severe abdominal pain and was given advice over the phone. Four days later Ms A was admitted to hospital where she had her appendix and part of her bowel removed. Mr C felt that it was unreasonable that the practice did not examine Ms A in person when she called them and that this failure could have led to a potentially serious situation. We took independent advice from a medical adviser. We found that the practice failed unreasonably to adequately assess and examine Ms A. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment that was provided to her late father (Mr A) by the practice on two occasions. Mr A was initially suffering with urinary problems and later, with symptoms of heart failure. Mrs C was concerned that there had been a failure to identify urinary retention as the cause of his symptoms and that, when he was seen by a GP registrar (trainee GP), a few months later, they attributed a seizure-like episode to medication changes, when he was actually suffering from aspiration pneumonia (a complication of pulmonary aspiration. Pulmonary aspiration is when you inhale food, stomach acid, or saliva into your lungs). We took independent advice from a GP. We found that there had been no unreasonable failure to diagnose urinary retention and that Mr A's symptoms were more consistent with urinary infection when he was seen by the practice. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint. We found that, when Mr A was seen by the GP registrar, the relevant guidance for diagnosis of heart failure had not been followed. We found that it was not possible to rule out the medication changes as a cause of the seizure-like episode and there was no indication in the medical records that Mr A was suffering from aspiration pneumonia at the time he was seen by the GP registrar. We upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint as the issue around diagnosis of heart failure had not been identified as a training issue for the GP registrar.

Mr C complained that he had been on two types of long term painkilling medication which the practice had failed to keep under regular review. Mr C was admitted to hospital as an emergency with symptoms of bleeding from his rectum. Mr C believed that he should not have been on both medications at the same time and that they caused his rectal bleeding. He felt that if the medication had been reviewed regularly then the bleeding would have been prevented. We took independent advice from a general practitioner. We found that it was appropriate for the practice to have prescribed both types of medication for Mr C and that there was no requirement to keep the medication under regular review. It was also found that there was another cause of Mr C's bleeding which was not connected with the medication. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201803268 as a PDF (10.99 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018