New Customer Service Standards

We have updated our Customer Service Standards and are looking for feedback from customers. Please fill out our survey here by 12 May 2025: https://forms.office.com/e/ZDpjibqe8r 

Health

  • Report no:
    S.47-03-04
  • Date:
    February 2004
  • Body:
    General Practitioners Lothian Area
  • Sector:
    Health

This complaint concerned the removal of a patient from the GPs' list. The complainant was of the view that the GPs concerned acted unreasonably in removing him from the Practice's list of patients.

  • Report no:
    S.106-01-02
  • Date:
    February 2004
  • Body:
    Grampian University Hospitals NHS Trust
  • Sector:
    Health

The account of the complaint provided by Mrs G was that in February 2001 her son was put on the waiting list for orthodontic treatment. Mrs G subsequently learned that the waiting time for this treatment is approximately three and a half years. Mrs G complained about the waiting time; she asked for an explanation or remedy for the situation. The Chief Executive of the Trust replied apologising for the lengthy waiting time and acknowledged that this was unsatisfactory. Mrs G sought an independent review of her complaint. The Convener refused her request on the ground that this was primarily a resource issue for which a reasonable explanation had been given.

  • Report no:
    S.28-03-04
  • Date:
    December 2003
  • Body:
    Medical Practice Lothian Area
  • Sector:
    Health

The complainants, Mr and Mrs E, felt they had been removed from their GPs' list with insufficient justification after Mr E had complained to the practice manager about the treatment Mrs E had received from the reception staff.

  • Report no:
    S.31-02-03
  • Date:
    September 2003
  • Body:
    South Glasgow University Hospitals NHS Trust
  • Sector:
    Health

The complainant, Mr J, put it that the Trust took an unreasonable length of time to diagnose his wife's bowel cancer resulting in her death.

  • Report no:
    S.9_02-03
  • Date:
    September 2003
  • Body:
    North Glasgow University Hospitals NHS Trust
  • Sector:
    Health

The account of the complaint provided by Mr R junior was that on 22 March 2001 his father Mr R, aged 90, was admitted to Glasgow Royal Infirmary (the hospital) with a history of vomiting and diarrhoea. This resolved and he was discharged on 30 March. On 1 April Mr R was readmitted (to a different ward of the hospital) with diarrhoea and dehydration. He was diagnosed as having a clinical infection caused by Clostridium difficile but attempts to control this by the use of metronidazole (Flagyl - an antibiotic) failed. It was decided to change his treatment to vancomycin. This was prescribed on 20 April and Mr R junior was told it had to be made up specially by the hospital pharmacy which caused a delay. Mr R died during the early morning on 21 April.

  • Report no:
    S.9_02-03
  • Date:
    September 2003
  • Body:
    North Glasgow University Hospitals NHS Trust
  • Sector:
    Health

The account of the complaint provided by Mr R junior was that on 22 March 2001 his father Mr R, aged 90, was admitted to Glasgow Royal Infirmary (the hospital) with a history of vomiting and diarrhoea. This resolved and he was discharged on 30 March. On 1 April Mr R was readmitted (to a different ward of the hospital) with diarrhoea and dehydration. He was diagnosed as having a clinical infection caused by Clostridium difficile but attempts to control this by the use of metronidazole (Flagyl - an antibiotic) failed. It was decided to change his treatment to vancomycin. This was prescribed on 20 April and Mr R junior was told it had to be made up specially by the hospital pharmacy which caused a delay. Mr R died during the early morning on 21 April.

  • Report no:
    S.131-01-02
  • Date:
    September 2003
  • Body:
    Lanarkshire Primary Care NHS Trust
  • Sector:
    Health

Following the death of his wife in hospital, Mr G complained to Mrs G’s GP about the care and treatment provided to his wife by the Practice. Mr G was dissatisfied with the responses he received and requested an independent review. The Convener refused an independent review on the grounds that the complaint had been thoroughly and fairly dealt with through local resolution.