Summary
C complained about the care and treatment that they received from the board. C was admitted to hospital for treatment for a renal abscess and they complained that they had been unreasonably discharged from hospital.
We took independent advice from a consultant urologist. We found that the decision to discharge C was reasonable and in keeping with best practice and guidelines. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C’s complaint.
C also complained that the board subsequently failed to provide them with reasonable follow-up outpatient treatment. Around five weeks after they were discharged from hospital, C was re-admitted to hospital with sepsis and subsequently required surgery to remove their spleen. We found that prescribing antibiotic therapy for only a two week period, without evidence of an improvement in C’s condition supported by renal imaging, was both inadequate and unreasonable. We, therefore, upheld this part of C’s complaint.
Recommendations
What we asked the organisation to do in this case: Apologise to C for the failing in treatment identified in the complaint. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/meaningful-apologies.
What we said should change to put things right in future: Alongside antibiotic therapy, renal abscesses require frequent imaging to assess their response to treatment. Antibiotic therapy should be prescribed to the patient until renal imaging has confirmed an improvement in their condition.
We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.
Related reading
View Decision Report 202405075 as a PDF (26.33 KB) Updated: September 23, 2026