A PATIENT who underwent botched surgery to treat an aneurysm has won in her complaint against Glasgow’s health board. 

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde chiefs have apologised following the mix-up at the city’s Queen Elizabeth University Hospital. 

The patient, known only as Ms C, had to go through two procedures after a complication emerged from the first and suffered “significant discomfort” as a result. 

READ MORE: NHS Lanarkshire chiefs sorry over mix-up in change of asthmatic patient's inhaler

The case was hauled before watching the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) who upheld her complaint and told the health board to better inform patients about the side effects of procedures. 

A NHS GGC spokesman said: "We recognise the issues highlighted in relation to the care of the patient. 

"We are very sorry about the matters that have been raised and can confirm we have written to those involved in the cases to express our apologies. 

"The Ombudsman’s recommendations have been discussed by the multi-disciplinary team and actions have been implemented to ensure lessons are learned from these cases and shared with appropriate staff."

According to a ruling published by the watchdog, Ms C underwent surgery to treat her illness at the South Side hub but a fine piece of filament was retained in her leg due to complications. 

A further procedure was performed the following day to remove the thread, but Ms C suffered significant discomfort during and after surgery. 

Her initial complaint was taken to the health board but she later took it up with the SPSO. 

The watchdog’s ruling read: “We received independent advice from a radiology adviser (a specialist in diagnosing and treating disease and injury through the use of medical imaging techniques such as x-rays and other scans).

READ MORE:  Airdrie's Monklands Hospital park plans backed by hundreds amid Wester Moffat move

“We found that the first procedure was not performed reasonably as there was a failure to identify the retained filament before the procedure ended. 

“We found that the second procedure was performed reasonably and we considered that the board had taken reasonable action to learn from the complication that occurred. 

“Finally, we considered that the consent process was inadequate as it was not clear that Ms C was informed about the possibility of pain as a result of the procedure.”