A medical practice in the East Riding of Yorkshire area

3. Mr O is complaining on behalf of his daughter, Miss O, about a telephone consultation on 12 March 2021 with a GP from the Practice. Prior to this telephone conversation, Mr O provided the GP with supporting evidence to show why Miss O should be in a priority group for a COVID-19 vaccination. He says:

· on 12 March 2021, the GP provided inadequate and dismissive responses regarding his wife's status as a carer · on 13 May 2021, the Practice left unaddressed questions and concerns in their final complaint response regarding his daughter's previous diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and its impact on her medical records.

4. As a result of this experience Mr O, and his daughter Miss O, have been left shocked and confused as to why PTSD would be an issue on Miss O’s medical records, and they feel this has left them unsupported. They also feel they cannot trust their GP.

5. Mr O is looking for a more detailed complaint response containing explanations to any questions and concerns that were not addressed in the Practice’s final response.

6. Miss O has a medical history of myalgic encephalomyelitis, also called chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), PTSD, and an autoimmune disorder. Engagement with the health service has been ongoing since 2018, and a diagnosis reached via a specialist in secondary care.

7. In March 2021, mindful of these comorbidities, her father spoke to the Practice, attempting to prioritise Miss O’s COVID-19 vaccination. He says these conditions have previously required hospitalisation for Miss O.

8. On 12 March 2021, Mr O and Miss O had a telephone conversation with a GP from the Practice. Prior to this, Mr O had provided correspondence from the specialists treating Miss O, about her various conditions. This included a template letter from the ME Association which demonstrated why ME sufferers should be prioritised for the COVID-19 vaccine.

9. During the telephone consultation, the GP initially disagreed with the view of Mr and Miss O that she should be prioritised. However, by the end of the consultation, the GP agreed they would mark down Miss O as being prioritised for the vaccine, based on her comorbidities.

10. It is during this consultation the family felt the GP’s tone was dismissive about the role of Miss O’s mother as a carer, and that she had been sent a letter saying she could be vaccinated. The family also felt that it was never explained why Miss O’s previous diagnosis of PTSD should not be noted on her medical records.

11. After the final response from the Practice on 13 May 2021, Mr O and Miss O believe the complaints process has not fully answered their concerns or provided explanations as to why PTSD would be detrimental on Miss O’s medical records.

15. Our own Principles of Good Complaint Handling is explicit in that organisations should provide fair and proportionate remedies, and where the organisation has got something wrong it should attempt to put this right by providing an explanation and apology.

16. Mr O and Miss O do not consider the Practice has provided sufficient detail in its explanation to satisfy them.

17. In conducting our preliminary investigation work, we consider the level of injustice, which is informed by our own severity scale, to be around a level one or level two. This is where complaint handling is said to have failed, and the injustice is of a relatively short duration that does not functionally impact on the person being able to live a relatively normal life.

18. Considering the outcome Mr O is seeking, and the level of severity, we think there is an opportunity for a resolution to be agreed. It is our view the organisation would be best placed to provide further detail and follow up on its handling of Mr and Miss O’s complaint. Both seek further answers to unanswered aspects from their engagement with the Practice. These relate to explanations and comments made by the GP about Mr O’s wife’s position as a carer. Additionally, they are seeking a better understanding of comments made regarding Miss O’s PTSD diagnosis being on her medical records.

19. On 7 February 2022, we spoke to the Mr and Miss O to discuss their complaint. During the call, it was explained that we would not take forward elements of the complaint as they had been remedied at a local level. These aspects related to the telephone consultation, and Miss O being prioritised for a vaccine. This is because the result of the telephone consultation was for Miss O to be prioritised for a vaccine. We would therefore consider this part of the complaint already dealt with on a local level, and there is no further work for us to do here as any injustice has been remedied. Mr O and Miss O accepted this and further agreed they would be willing to a resolution that involved the Practice revisiting unanswered matters and providing more detail.

20. In the telephone call with the Practice on 14 February 2022, the Practice Manager agreed that in hindsight, the final response could have been more tailored to the case of Miss O and her diagnosis of PTSD. Instead of using general examples of other patients and their situation, with severe mental health diagnosis coded on their medical records. Equally, they felt it would be of benefit to discuss the outstanding concerns with Mr and Miss O, in order to be more customer service focused. The Practice agreed to engage again with the Mr and Miss O through further local resolution.

21. Our Service Model Guidance is explicit in that we should consider attempting a resolution, where there could be minimal intervention and it could achieve a satisfactory result for the complainant.

22. As both parties agree to this approach, it is our view a resolution to address aspects of the Practice’s complaint handling can be achieved. We consider the remaining elements of the complaint would be best addressed locally, and more importantly, directly by the Practice. Informed by our own policy, we do not consider that taking this complaint element through to a detailed investigation would be proportionate or customer focused. It could also elongate the process by many weeks and would likely achieve the same outcome as could be obtained through a local resolution.

23. For the reasons we have outlined above, we will take no further action on this complaint.

1. Mr O complains on behalf of his daughter, Miss O, about a medical practice in the East Riding of Yorkshire area (the Practice). We have carefully considered Mr O’s complaint, and having discussed this with all parties in agreement, we have decided that a resolution is the best outcome for this complaint. As such, we will take no further action.

2. We were sorry to learn of the events that occurred during the telephone consultation with the Practice on 12 March 2021, that resulted in unanswered questions and explanations, and the distrust they have felt with the Practice. From their complaint, we can see this has caused them significant confusion and left them seeking answers.