Investigation reports

We found that a GP practice should not have removed a patient from its Patient List without giving him an initial warning. 

A GP practice should have had a face-to-face consultation with an elderly patient, despite the Covid restrictions in place at the time. 

A patient was prescribed diazepam after he complained to his GP about feeling unwell. 

We asked the surgery to apologise after he was later found to have suffered five strokes in the space of a week. 

We investigated a complaint about the treatment a man received from his GP practice shortly before he took his own life. 

We upheld parts of the complaint.

We found a GP Practice treated a man's elbow appropriately.  However, we believed that the man's complaint about his treatment prompted the Practice to remove him from its list.

We said this was unfair. 

A breakdown in the relationship between a GP Practice and a patient led to her being removed from its Patient List.  We welcomed the staff training delivered by the Practice which followed our investigation.

A patient in a medical practice complained that her eye infection should have been examined by a GP rather than a nurse. We found that the examination was appropriate, but that a GP should have seen the patient following her request.

We investigated whether an increase in a man’s prescription caused him to attend hospital the following day.

We found the Practice’s increase in the dose fell within the prescribed limits.

A woman said that her GP should have diagnosed her daughter's tonsilitis and given her an antibiotic.

We found that the Practice treated the infection appropriately.