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 201103765

  • Case ref:
    201103765
  • Date:
    December 2012
  • Body:
    Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board - Acute Services Division
  • Sector:
    Health
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    communication, staff attitude, dignity, confidentiality

Summary

Mr and Mrs C underwent in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment (fertility treatment) in 2010 and had a child. They understood that they were not entitled to further treatment from the health board and had been saving for private treatment. They made an appointment for a private consultation. However, Mrs C said she received a telephone call from the board in April 2011 saying she was entitled to a further cycle of treatment. On that basis, Mr and Mrs C cancelled their private treatment, and made appointments at the board's assisted conception unit. Around three months later, Mrs C contacted the board to confirm the dates of her appointment with the assisted conception unit and was told that there had been an error, and she was in fact no longer entitled to further NHS treatment.

The board conducted an investigation including tracing their call logs, but could find no record of the call to Mrs C in April 2011. There was also no record of appointments having been made for her with the assisted conception unit in 2011. The board considered Mr and Mrs C's case again, but reached the decision that they would not deviate from their normal policy on IVF to offer a second cycle of treatment. We considered the board's investigation and obtained further information. We found that there was no independent evidence to support Mrs C's position about the telephone call, although we did not disbelieve her position. We also found the board's position of following their policy to be reasonable. Although we did find that there was a delay in Mr and Mrs C obtaining IVF treatment as a result of their experiences, on balance we did not uphold the complaint.

Updated: March 13, 2018