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 201306093

  • Case ref:
    201306093
  • Date:
    August 2014
  • Body:
    A Medical Practice in the Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board area
  • Sector:
    Health
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    clinical treatment / diagnosis

Summary

Mrs C told us that during a consultation on another matter she had mentioned to her GP that she had a lump on her thigh. She said the GP dismissed the lump as being of no consequence. She mentioned the lump again during a consultation three years later, after it began to grow. She was referred to hospital and was later diagnosed with a malignant tumour. Mrs C said she thought the GP was unreasonably dismissive of the concerns she had raised at the earlier consultation.

We found that there was no written record of the earlier discussion between Mrs C and her GP. The GP had no recollection of the consultation, but the practice had accepted Mrs C's account of the discussion. They said that the lump would not have been referred unless it was bigger than five centimetres, was deep or was increasing in size. They said that Mrs C's own account of the lump was that it was very small and had not changed during the three year period between consultations.

We concluded that the original decision not to refer Mrs C was reasonable and consistent with the guidance relating to the referral of lumps, and did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. Although it would have been best practice for the GP to record that discussion, in the circumstances we did not consider it unreasonable that they did not.

Updated: March 13, 2018