Easter closure

Please note that we will be closed from 5pm Thursday 28 March until Tuesday 2 April 2024 for the Easter break. Complaints can still be made via our complaints form but they will not be received until we reopen. Wishing you a happy Easter! 

Technical issues:

The SPSO advice line is currently unavailable due to technical issues which we are working with our telephone provider to resolve.  We apologise for the inconvenience and hope to find a resolution as soon as possible. 

Decision report 201103869

  • Case ref:
    201103869
  • Date:
    August 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 about her diagnosis and treatment when a suspected pre-cancerous duct was found in her breast after a routine screening. She said that she was offered only radiotherapy after her operation, although she believed alternative treatments were available. Mrs C undertook her own internet research and went to a private doctor for a second opinion. Mrs C said that she was, however, being advised by her clinicians, her GP and even her family to undergo radiotherapy so she eventually signed the consent form and agreed to treatment.

Our investigation showed that several clinicians spoke to Mrs C about her condition and radiotherapy treatment. We took advice from our medical adviser, who said that the only alternative to radiotherapy was no treatment at all. This was because the type of condition that Mrs C had cannot be treated with more usual treatments for breast cancer.

Mrs C was also unhappy with the diagnosis of her condition. She had a mammogram (breast x-ray) and two needle biopsies (where a small amount of tissue is removed for examination). She was also seen by a consultant surgeon. Our medical adviser said that this diagnostic process complied with SIGN (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network) guidance. He did not consider that the process was overly invasive or radical. In line with the SIGN guidance, the matter was discussed at a multi-disciplinary team meeting and the options discussed with Mrs C and passed on to her GP.

Updated: March 13, 2018