Easter break office closure 

We will be closed from 5pm Thursday 17 April 2025 until 10am Tuesday 22 April 2025. You can still submit your complaint via our online form but we will not respond until we reopen.

New Customer Service Standards

We have updated our Customer Service Standards and are looking for feedback from customers. Please fill out our survey here by 12 May 2025: https://forms.office.com/e/ZDpjibqe8r 

Decision report 201105084

  • Case ref:
    201105084
  • Date:
    November 2012
  • Body:
    Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board - Acute Services Division
  • Sector:
    Health
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    clinical treatment / diagnosis

Summary

Mrs C complained to the board about the treatment she received from a hospital doctor. Mrs C's GP had referred her there because Mrs C was suffering from urinary incontinence. The hospital doctor had conducted tests then referred her to neurology and a bladder specialist. Mrs C said the doctor failed to ask about her vaginal discharge and failed to carry out a pelvic ultrasound scan. Mrs C was subsequently diagnosed with a tumour in her womb. She believed that, had this been found sooner, then the cancer would not have spread to other organs.

We took advice from our medical adviser who noted that he saw no indication that a pelvic ultrasound scan was required given Mrs C's presented symptoms. Mrs C was assessed by three different clinicians with expertise in different areas. All the correspondence and medical notes suggest that Mrs C's symptoms were of incontinence rather than of vaginal discharge. When the symptoms did not ease, Mrs C was appropriately referred for further investigation. We noted that there was a delay in the process for arranging a hysteroscopy (a procedure that allows a surgeon to look inside the womb using a narrow tube-like telescopic camera) and the board apologised to Mrs C and explained the action that they had been taken to prevent a repeat occurrence before she complained to us. Although, therefore, we understood why Mrs C was concerned that a chance to diagnose the cancer may have been missed, we took the view that the care she received was appropriate in the circumstances.

Updated: March 13, 2018