A medical practice in the West Midlands
Miss V complained a GP misdiagnosed her daughter with a urine infection without a sample; her daughter subsequently developed diabetic ketoacidosis and type 1 diabetes.
Outcome
The complaint
3. Miss V complains about the care and treatment provided to her daughter, Miss J, by a GP at the Practice in July 2020. Specifically, she complains the GP misdiagnosed Miss J with a urine infection, without taking a urine sample. She does not think the Practice has adequately explained how the GP reached their diagnosis.
4. The GP prescribed Miss J with an antibiotic to treat the urine infection. Miss J deteriorated the following day, and Miss V called an ambulance. Miss J had gone into diabetic ketoacidosis and was admitted to a high dependency unit. Hospital doctors diagnosed Miss J with type 1 diabetes.
5. Miss V says if she had followed the GP’s advice, Miss J may have died as she went into diabetic ketoacidosis and her condition was dangerous. Miss V feels the GP neglected Miss J. Miss V says Miss J now suffers with anxiety following her diagnosis and has had to make lots of changes to her lifestyle. Miss V would like financial compensation for Miss J.
Findings
7. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has (or had) the option to take legal action, unless we consider this is (or was) unreasonable in the circumstances. We have discussed this with Miss V to understand her circumstances and the outcomes she wants. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed but whether it would be a reasonable option to look in to.
8. An individual may pursue a clinical negligence case when they have been injured or suffered harm as a result of medically negligent treatment. Given the circumstances of Miss V’s complaint, it appears she may be able to pursue Miss J’s case via a clinical negligence claim.
9. Miss J may be entitled to compensation if there was a delay in diagnosing type 1 diabetes, which Miss V says resulted in her becoming seriously unwell, entering diabetic ketoacidosis, and requiring admission to a high dependency unit. Miss V also says the GP gave Miss J the wrong treatment as they diagnosed her with a water infection without first obtaining a urine sample.
10. We understand how worrying this must have been for both Miss J and Miss V, and the ongoing anxiety Miss J now has because of this incident and her diagnosis. It is clear from Miss V’s account that this incident has had a lasting effect on Miss J’s confidence and lifestyle.
11. Miss V stated verbally, and on her complaint form, that she is looking to take legal action. She explained she had not yet sought legal advice from a solicitor, instead she came to us first as she did not know where to start with it. She did not tell me of any practical barriers which would make this process difficult for her. The complaint is also within the three-year time limit for making a legal claim.
12. Miss V says she is seeking around £30,000 in financial compensation.
13. We have carefully considered the information provided. Our view is that Miss V could take legal action on the matter she has brought to us, on behalf of Miss J. As such, we have decided not to consider her complaint further on the grounds she has a possible alternative legal remedy. Miss V should first explore whether she can pursue the complaint via a legal process. If she finds she cannot pursue this, she may come back to us and potentially we could consider it as a new case.
14. Miss V should be aware of our 12-month time limit when returning to us. The law says a complaint needs to be made to us within a year of becoming aware of the problem. We cannot investigate complaints brought to us after one year, unless we consider there is a good reason to do so.
Our decision
1. We have carefully considered Miss V’s complaint about a GP at a medical practice in the West Midlands (the Practice). We consider Miss V could take legal action on the matter she has brought to us.
2. We understand that Miss J’s delayed diagnosis and deterioration caused both Miss J and Miss V distress. This has had an ongoing impact on Miss J, who is now very anxious. We consider that it is proportionate and reasonable for Miss V to explore taking legal action on this matter first as the only outcome she seeks is financial compensation.
Decision details
- Reference
- P-001189
- Decision type
- Statement
- Jurisdiction
- NHS in England
- Decision date
- 24 August 2021
- Outcome
- Closed After Initial Enquiries
Complaint summary
- Summary
- Miss V complained a GP misdiagnosed her daughter with a urine infection without a sample; her daughter subsequently developed diabetic ketoacidosis and type 1 diabetes.
Source links
- PHSO portal
- Search on PHSO website →
Data from PHSO under Open Government Licence.