Latest news with #SPSO
Scotsman
19-05-2025
- Health
- Scotsman
Don't wait when there's an action to be raised
Time-bars are vital even in heart-wrenching cases Sign up to our Scotsman Money newsletter, covering all you need to know to help manage your money. Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Time limits within which actions must be raised in Scotland are imposed for sound public policy reasons. Courts are often tasked with the unenviable exercise of applying the relevant legal principles to claims involving distressing circumstances. Take heed of the legal tale Steven Smart has to tell In Marlene Simpson and Faye Campbell v Dumfries and Galloway Health Board, the pursuers were the mother and sister of Michael Crossan, who died by suicide on 20 August 2019. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad On 20 December 2022, the pursuers raised an action against the Health Board, arguing its failure to provide appropriate care was the cause. The Health Board argued the action was time-barred, as it was raised outwith the three-year period permitted in Scotland. Section 18 of the relevant legislation lays down the circumstances in which the three-year time limit will commence. Section 19A provides the court with the power to override the time limit 'if it seems equitable to do so'. Within two weeks of the death, the pursuers sought legal advice and made a complaint to the Health Board, which resulted in a Serious Adverse Event Review (SAER). Following the outcome of the SAER, the pursuer's solicitors advised that in line with their business practice, the prospects of success were insufficiently high for them to continue acting but advised personal injury claims were subject to a three-year time limit. The first pursuer appealed the SAER to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) on 6 July 202. The complaint was upheld on 28 October 2022. The SPSO decision was passed to solicitors and an action was raised on 20 December 2022. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Applying the relevant test, the Sheriff found that by 21 September 2019, the pursuers were aware the death was due to the actions of the Health Board. They had repeatedly been advised of the limitation period but had 'closed their minds to raising any proceedings until after the SPSO issued their final decision.' Even after the final decision was available, proceedings were not raised promptly. The sheriff sought to balance the prejudice to each party. If the extension was not granted, the pursuers would lose their right to pursue their claim. If it was, the Health Board would be prejudiced by the deterioration of evidence due to the passage of time. He refused to grant the extension in the circumstances and the action was dismissed. On appeal, it was held that it does not matter if a pursuer knew whether or not the acts or omissions were legally actionable. What is required is awareness that the death was capable of being attributed to those acts and omissions. This had to be a real possibility and not a fanciful one, a possible rather than probable cause. The Sheriff had not erred in identifying the starting date above. Furthermore, a pursuer relying on section 19A must satisfy the court that it should grant the remedy and provide an explanation for the delay which is sufficiently cogent to justify depriving a defender of a complete defence. It was within the Sheriff's discretion to find that this test was not met. The pursuers were advised repeatedly that they had a three-year period within which to raise litigation. Awaiting the decision of the Ombudsman was not justification not to raise proceedings. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This sad case serves as a stark reminder of the necessity to understand and comply with relevant time limits to preserve a right of claim and that public policy will be given effect where appropriate, even in harrowing claims.
Daily Record
01-05-2025
- Health
- Daily Record
NHS Lanarkshire 'sorry' after patient visited A&E five times before cancer diagnosis
A Scots health board has apologised after a patient attended A&E a total of five times before receiving a diagnosis of bladder cancer. The patient, who has not been named, was using a catheter by themselves due to a history of recurring urinary tract infections (UTIs). NHS Lanarkshire provided them with a long-term catheter to be changed every three months. Over the course of several months, they visited A&E five times before they were admitted and ultimately diagnosed with cancer . Their spouse made a complaint to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO), which has been upheld, reports STV . The spouse was not satisfied with the lack of arrangements to change the catheter and that it took several A&E visits before their partner was admitted, and believed that appointment requests were "ignored". The watchdog sought independent advise from specialist medics ; a consultant urologist, a consultant in emergency medicine and a medical director who specialises in palliative care. It found that, as the long-term catheter was a trial, the patient's progress should have been followed up on. There were also "unreasonable" delays in the patient getting an appointment with the urologist and being informed of their diagnosis . While NHS Lanarkshire found it to be reasonable that the patient was not admitted sooner for examination, it acknowledged there was a "missed opportunity". The spouse's complaint that the diagnosis and discharge process were not clearly explained was also upheld. SPSO found the board had made a "reasonable effort" to explain the cancer diagnosis , but failed to discuss the "challenges" with the patient reaching the end of their life once they had been sent home. It was also discovered, in relation to the handling of the complaint, that information given to the patient's partner and the SPSO was "inaccurate in places and incomplete". The ombudsman made several recommendations, including that the NHS board apologise to the spouse. Adverse events should also be investigated, patients should be given "timely" follow-ups based on their clinical needs, and planning discharges should be "person-centred and holistic". Russell Coulthard, director of acute services at NHS Lanarkshire, said: 'We fully accept the recommendations within the Ombudsman's report and the lessons learned in this patient's care will be shared with staff to help avoid similar occurrences in future. 'We have also written to the family offering our sympathies and our apologies .'
STV News
01-05-2025
- Health
- STV News
Patient couldn't start chemo because of botched treatment for infected toe
A patient at an NHS board was unable to start chemotherapy because of botched treatment they received for an infected toe. The patient's spouse complained to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) over the treatment received from NHS Dumfries and Galloway. They complained that the infected toe remained unresolved, despite several months of treatment, and that their spouse was unable to start chemotherapy for their oesophageal cancer during this time. The spouse said that this meant the patient 'experienced significant pain' and that there had been a 'failure' to coordinate their care needs. The SPSO took independent advice from a consultant orthopaedic surgeon and a consultant clinical oncologist. In its report, it found that the health board had provided reasonable care when each admission was considered in isolation. However, during one admission it was found the results of an MRI scan were not correctly reported, resulting in the patient receiving lesser surgery. It was also found that this incident was not reported in accordance with Duty of Candor legislation, and no internal review was conducted to learn from it. The watchdog stated that a more coordinated approach to the care could have provided a 'proper overview' of their needs, including pain management, which were known to be complex. NHS Dumfries and Galloway did not 'accurately' describe the impact of failing the MRI scan to the patient or 'acknowledge the impact' this had on their surgery and treatment plan. The board also failed to initiate 'relevant reporting and investigation' processes. A number of recommendations were made by the SPSO, including that the board should apologise to the patient's spouse. It also included following processes after an incident to ensure learning, reflecting on how the patient's care could have been managed differently, and investigating complaints in line with guidance. A spokesperson for the health board said: 'NHS Dumfries and Galloway cannot comment on individual cases. 'However, it can confirm that it has accepted the SPSO's decision and is in the process of undertaking the associated recommendations. 'An apology has been issued to the complainant in line with those recommendations.' Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
STV News
29-04-2025
- Health
- STV News
Patient suffered diagnosis delay after junior doctor missed 'red flags' in A&E
A patient suffering from a perforated bowel had their diagnosis delayed after a junior doctor missed 'red flags' during an assessment in A&E. After arriving at the emergency department of an NHS Forth Valley hospital, the patient was initially assessed by a junior doctor who ordered various tests and investigations. They were later moved to the acute assessment unit and diagnosed with a perforated bowel The patient developed sepsis after undergoing emergency surgery. The patient's child complained to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) about their parent's treatment. Specifically, they complained about the delay in identifying their parent's condition, which they believe led to a worse outcome. NHS Forth Valley acknowledged that a more senior doctor may have identified the cause quicker, but that the care provided was reasonable, and that the complaint had led to learning and ongoing development. In putting together their report, the SPSO took independent advice from an emergency medicine consultant. It found that there were 'a number of red flags' when the patient was admitted and that it did 'not appear' they had been reviewed by a senior clinician. Issues were also found in the patient's documentation; no intimate examination was recorded, and there was a 'lack' of documentation around the interpretation of an X-ray. Overall, the report concluded that the initial assessment delayed diagnosis of the perforated bowel and was likely to have had a 'significant effect' on the patient's outcome. The watchdog made a number of recommendations for the health board, including apologising to the patient's child. It also advised that patients receive 'appropriate treatment including assessment' in line with their symptoms, and that case records include any tests carried out and the decisions behind them. A spokesperson for NHS Forth Valley said: 'We have apologised to the patient for the failures in the care and treatment provided and have already taken action to address the recommendations in the report. 'This has resulted in learning and improvements to help prevent similar issues from occurring in the future.' STV News is now on WhatsApp Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News
STV News
24-04-2025
- Business
- STV News
Council wrongly handed homeowner £15,000 repair bill after tenement fire
A Scottish council wrongly handed a £15,000 repair bill to a homeowner after a tenement fire. The owner complained to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) over Aberdeen City Council's management of the repairs. After the fire, extensive work was needed to repair the damage and dry rot was identified in the building. The majority of the properties in the building were council-owned, so the local authority took the lead in arranging and managing the works. In their report, the ombudsman found that the council's communication with the homeowner about the rising cost of the repairs had been 'unreasonable.' Furthermore, Aberdeen City Council 'failed to follow their own processes or act in line with their obligations under the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004'. The final invoice included costs that the homeowner was not liable for, and the council failed to notify the homeowner of emergency roof repairs after a storm, meaning they could not submit an insurance claim. Overall, it was found that the local authority's handling of the repairs was 'unreasonable' and the SPSO recommended that the homeowner be refunded the administration fee. An Aberdeen City Council spokesperson said: 'We acknowledge the findings of the report and have acted upon the recommendations.' Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
