Investigation reports

A man’s cancer treatment was interrupted by the Covid pandemic in March 2020. We found that he should have been reviewed by clinicians as soon as possible after the resumption of face-to-face appointments. 

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 Diazapan 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. 

A woman claimed that her daughter’s development was held back by the South Eastern Trust. We upheld parts of the complaint, finding that the Trust's failings led to a loss of opportunity for the child and caused her mother upset and distress. 

A man asked the South Eastern Trust to check whether his mother was entitled to help with her care home fees. 

We found the Trust failed to properly deal with the request and asked it to re-assess her primary care needs when revised guidance becomes available.

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.