Festive closure

We will close at 5pm on Tuesday 24 December 2024 and reopen at 9am Friday 3 January 2025. You can still submit complaints through our online form, but we won't respond until we reopen.

Decision Report 202001420

  • Case ref:
    202001420
  • Date:
    July 2021
  • Body:
    Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board - Acute Services Division
  • Sector:
    Health
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    Clinical treatment / diagnosis

Summary

C underwent a septoplasty (procedure to straighten bone and cartilage in nose). Around nine years later, C was referred to neurology (the science of the nerves and the nervoussystem, especially of the diseases affecting them) with symptoms of migraine. C believed that their pain and symptoms were related to physical issues with their nasal passages, rather than being neurological in origin.

C underwent an MRI scan to investigate their history of recurring pain and headaches. The board's conclusion was that there was no abnormal findings and ruled out issues with C's septum and nasal passages being the cause of their symptoms. C complained to the health board that the findings from the MRI scan were incorrect and that the board refused to offer C a second opinion.

The health board responded to C's complaint advising that the results of the MRI were reported accurately and that there was no evidence of failures with respect to the assessment of the imaging. Repeat imaging was arranged but C cancelled the appointment and advised that they did not want this to go ahead.

C brought the complaint to us that the health board had failed to appropriately assess the MRI scan and take appropriate action to resolve their symptoms. We sought advice from an independent adviser and we found that the board appropriately assessed the MRI scan and took appropriate action for follow-up imaging to be arranged. We identified that it may have been beneficial had the health board clarified the deviated septum identified in the imaging was considered incidental and therefore not included in the imaging report. This was fed back to the board. Given that the assessment and treatment was reasonable, we did not uphold the complaint.

Updated: July 21, 2021