Source · PHSO decision

A practice in the Surrey area

Ref: P-001948 Statement Decision date: 27 April 2023 Jurisdiction: NHS in England Closed After Initial Enquiries

Mr B complained a GP failed to properly examine his abdomen and bladder for severe pain, leading to prolonged suffering and incorrect diagnosis.

Outcome

AI summary
The ombudsman decided not to take further action, suggesting Mr B could pursue legal action to resolve his complaint about the GP's care.

The complaint

3. Mr B explains he was experiencing severe pains in his abdomen and bladder and attended an appointment at the Practice on 11 July 2022. He complains the GP did not examine his abdominal area or bladder and instead concentrated on his prostate.

4. Mr B says because the GP did not examine him or diagnose him correctly, he was left in severe pain. He says this affected his daily routine and he was struggling to pass urine.

5. Mr B wants financial compensation for how he was affected and for the cost of private treatment he had to pay for.

Background

6. When the GP examined Mr B’s prostate, they recorded it as enlarged. They submitted a referral for blood tests and an urgent ultrasound for more tests.

7. Mr B had a private consultation on 19 July and was diagnosed with chronic urinary retention (not being able to completely empty the bladder) with urethral stricture (scarring that narrows the tube, urethra, which carries urine out of your body) likely being the cause. A stricture restricts the flow of urine from the bladder and can cause a variety of medical problems in the urinary tract, including inflammation or infection.

8. Mr B paid privately for a procedure to try to dilate the stricture. Urethral dilation is a commonly used technique for treating urethral strictures.

Findings

11. We consider Mr B may be able to make a clinical negligence claim against the Practice. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed but whether it would be a reasonable option to look into.

12. Mr B is only looking for financial compensation for the cost of the private consultations and surgery. If we were to investigate fully and find failings, we can recommend financial compensation, but this is often modest compared to what a court could recommend. We have to decide which route is best for Mr B to take.

13. Mr B told us he wants a minimum compensation payment of £2,457. On review of the cost of the further treatment he says he needs, it seems he would want a further payment of around £3,000.

14. 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 Mrs B to understand Mr B’s circumstances and the outcomes he wants.

15. Mrs B told us Mr B had not considered legal action until all the facts were clear. He was concerned the cost of taking legal action would be a barrier. Most clinical negligence claims are funded by way of a ‘no-win, no-fee’ agreement, so there do not have to be financial barriers to making a legal claim. We think the amount of compensation that could be awarded would be more than any legal costs. Mr B can discuss the available funding options with a solicitor. Mrs B told us she will get legal advice to see whether Mr B is able to make a legal claim against the Practice.

16. From speaking with Mrs B in more detail about the complaint, we have not identified anything to suggest the case would be too complex for Mr B to make a claim.

17.

Our decision is there is a legal route available to Mr B that would best achieve the outcome he is looking for. We do not think it would be unreasonable for him to explore this and, from speaking to Mrs B, they have agreed to do this. Because of this, we will be taking no further action. If Mr B is unable to take legal action, he can return to us to consider his complaint. He should come back to us quickly because we have a one-year time limit for bringing a complaint to us.

18. We thank Mr B for bringing his complaint to us. We appreciate this would have been a distressing time for him and we hope the procedure was successful and his recovery is going well.

Our decision

1. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has carefully considered Mr B’s complaint about a practice in the Surrey area (the Practice). We consider Mr B could take legal action to resolve his complaint and we have not seen anything to suggest this option is unreasonable.

2. We are sorry to hear about what happened to Mr B and how this affected him.

Decision details

Reference
P-001948
Decision type
Statement
Jurisdiction
NHS in England
Decision date
27 April 2023
Outcome
Closed After Initial Enquiries

Complaint summary

AI
Summary
Mr B complained a GP failed to properly examine his abdomen and bladder for severe pain, leading to prolonged suffering and incorrect diagnosis.

Source links

PHSO portal
Search on PHSO website →

Data from PHSO under Open Government Licence.