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 201801523

  • Case ref:
    201801523
  • Date:
    May 2019
  • Body:
    Dumfries and Galloway NHS Board
  • Sector:
    Health
  • Outcome:
    Some upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    clinical treatment / diagnosis

Summary

Mrs C complained about the treatment her mother (Mrs A) received when she attended the emergency department at Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary having experienced a fall, and loss of mobility in her legs. Mrs A was discharged from hospital the same day. The following day, Mrs A was unable to mobilise and was admitted to hospital, where it was later discovered that she had suffered a stroke. Mrs C was unhappy that Mrs A was discharged, and complained that the opportunity for mitigating treatment for Mrs A's stroke and for further observation was lost. Mrs C said Mrs A had been visited at home by her GP the week earlier and that the GP said Mrs A might have had a slight stroke. Mrs C was unhappy that Mrs A's GP had not been consulted.

We took independent advice from a medical adviser. We found that the medical treatment Mrs A received was reasonable, and that, on the basis of tests appropriately carried out, stroke was not expected as the cause of Mrs A's mobility problems. We considered that, in the circumstances, stroke mitigating treatment would not have been appropriate and would not have altered the outcome for Mrs A. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

Mrs C also complained about the board's handling of her complaint. We found that Mrs C's complaint was not acknowledged or responded to within the correct timescale. We found that the board had already acknowledged these shortcomings, had apologised, and had explained the action they were taking to address them. Mrs C also raised some issues that were not addressed in the board's response. We found that a clearer explanation could have been given for the reasons for Mrs A's discharge. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

Updated: May 22, 2019