Festive closure 

Our office will be closed for the festive period from 25 December 2025 and will reopen on Monday 5 January 2026. Our phone line will close at 11am on 24 December 2025.

You can still submit your complaint via our online form but this will not be processed until we reopen.

Decision Report 202410876

  • Case ref:
    202410876
  • Date:
    December 2025
  • Body:
    Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board - Acute Services Division
  • Sector:
    Health
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    Clinical treatment / diagnosis

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment provided to their adult child (A). A has hereditary haemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT, a rare genetic disorder characterised by abnormal blood vessel formation, leading to frequent bleeding, with potentially severe complications). A attended A&E as they had previously been bleeding from the left eye. A was triaged within 30 minutes and seen by a senior nurse within 90 minutes. The senior nurse discussed A’s presentation with a senior doctor. A was advised that they could await clinical review by a doctor, with a likely wait of up to two hours. A decided to leave and see an optician the next day. A was subsequently referred to the ophthalmology department (eye specialists) for further review and then to the oculoplastic clinic (specialists in surgical procedures around the eye) to consider cauterisation of a lesion inside the left, lower lid.

C complained that triage and initial review were unreasonable, as no-one examined A’s eyes or nose, staff had little understanding of the condition, on-call ophthalmology were not consulted and A felt pressured to leave. Overall, C was concerned that A could have lost their sight without timeous, specialist intervention.

The board considered that A had been appropriately managed in A&E. They noted that the discharge letter advised A had no active bleeding and no visual disturbance. A was offered to wait for medical review but decided to make their own optician appointment.

We took independent advice from a consultant in emergency medicine. We found that triage and staff understanding of A's condition was reasonable. We found that it was reasonable to give A the opportunity to await clinical review and not to have ophthalmology input prior to clinical review. No harm came to A and no adverse event review was required. We did not uphold C's complaint.

Updated: December 17, 2025