A GP practice in the Somerset area

5. Mr O complains about the Practice’s care and treatment from 2001 to 2022. He says:

• since 2001 he asked his GP ten to 12 times for help with his leg pain and cramps, but each time the GP told him he did not know what caused the pain • the GP should have diagnosed him with DVT in 2001 when he first had symptoms, especially as his father died of DVT • the complaint responses from the Practice and NHS England detail the symptoms he had described but then say they could not see anything to suggest he had DVT.

6. Mr O says the impact on his life is huge. He says he has been affected more than we can imagine by the ‘catastrophic failure to not only prevent disaster but to do that for over 20 years’.

7. Mr O says his life is ruined and he is halfway through a home build and several other projects that he cannot finish. He cannot work to fund the materials for his projects and feels he cannot make plans for the future. He says he feels betrayed by the Practice. He says he was physically tough, strong and hardworking before, and cannot do jobs he used to.

8. Mr O wants the GP to publicly admit to failures and to be ‘struck off as incompetent’. He says if the GP missed his DVT diagnosis over a period of 20 years, it is likely he could have done this to other patients.

9. He would like a financial payment for the GP’s ‘repeated incompetence over 22 years’.

10. In 2001, Mr O first went to his GP with serious pains and cramps up the insides of his legs.

11. In 2005, 2009, 2011, 2014, 2016 and 2019, Mr O went to his GP with the same symptoms and his GP could not answer his questions.

12. On 28 January 2020, Mr O was examined by his GP who told him he would make appointments for tests, scans and X-rays. These were done.

13. On 17 February 2020, Mr O saw the GP again and asked for help.

14. On 6 December 2022, Mr O found out he had DVT when he was admitted to hospital.

16. The Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 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 discussed this with Mr O to understand his circumstances and the outcomes he wants. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed, but whether it would be a reasonable option to look into.

17. During telephone conversations with Mr O, we learned he is already in the process of contacting solicitors. We think it is reasonable for him to continue exploring his legal options to try to achieve the financial outcome he wants.

18. Mr O also wants the GP to publicly admit to failures, and to be ‘struck off as incompetent’. Before we decide if we should do a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there is another organisation who is better placed to deal with the concerns. We cannot recommend that disciplinary action is taken against a GP. This type of action is better suited to investigation by the GMC. It can decide if a GP is fit for practice.

19. We understand Mr O has been through a very difficult time. We have made this decision to give him a better opportunity of getting what he is looking for.

1. We have carefully considered Mr O’s complaint about a GP practice in the Somerset area (the Practice). We are sorry to learn of the impact not being given a diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis (DVT is a blood clot in a vein, usually in the leg) in 2001 had on Mr O’s life. We can see this has caused him much distress.

2. Mr O wants a large financial payment as an outcome to his complaint.

3. Mr O is already in the process of trying to find a solicitor to take on his case. We think going down the legal action route and making a clinical negligence claim is the right thing for him to do.

4. Mr O can also contact the General Medical Council (GMC) with the other outcomes he wants because these are directly linked to a GP and not outcomes we can achieve.