A practice in the Islington area

3. Ms M complains to us about the care she received at a GP Practice in London (the Practice) during an appointment on 25 September 2024. Specifically, Ms M says:

• the consultation room was dirty and not sanitised • the clinician did not wash their hands prior to conducting the cervix exam • the clinician joined a virtual meeting throughout the appointment, and • a staff member walked into the consultation room whilst the cervix exam was taking place.

4. Ms M says she has been left with trauma and suffers from flashbacks. She also says she is unsure if the results are reliable due to how the examination was conducted and the cleanliness of the consultation room meaning she requested a repeat examination.

5. As an outcome to the complaint, Ms M seeks financial redress, clean consultation rooms and dignity and confidentiality to be upheld at all times.

6. Ms M complains about the care which she received when she attended the Practice for an appointment on 25 September 2024. The appointment was pre-planned. When Ms M attended, the consultation room had not been cleaned following recent maintenance work.

7. During the appointment, Ms M observed the clinician did not wash their hands before conducting an examination. The clinician also attended a virtual staff meeting during the appointment and a member of staff walked into the consultation room mid examination.

10. The law says that we cannot investigate a complaint whereby the complainant has or will have had the opportunity to raise their concerns via an alternate legal remedy.

11. When looking at this complaint, along with the outcome Ms M is seeking to achieve, financial remedy, we consider it is appropriate for Ms M to explore legal action.

12. Ms M complains that the clinician did not conduct the examination appropriately which caused unnecessary pain and discomfort. As the consultation room was not sanitised, Ms M was not confident in the results of the examination and felt required to request a re-examination.

13. There is a legal course of action available. Mrs M could make a legal claim for clinical negligence for the issues she has raised.

14. While we can make recommendations for financial remedy where we see something has gone wrong that has had an impact on the complainant, the amounts we recommend are usually more modest than those awarded by the legal system. This is because we use a different approach to considering financial remedy.

15. When considering recommending a financial remedy, we consider the impact of any failings we find on the complainant. The legal process may also consider the impact of any failings on the person who received treatment, and so the amounts awarded are often higher than those we would recommend.

16. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed. We look at whether there are legal options available and whether it would be reasonable for the person to explore them.

17. We discussed the potential outcome of alternate legal remedy with Ms M on the call on 19 March 2026 and 8 April 2026. Ms M explained that there is a potential financial barrier to accessing alternate legal remedy.

18. Ms M also expressed another potential barrier to accessing alternate legal remedy that Ms M may struggle due to her neurodiversity.

19. Based on the information we have seen so far, we have not seen any reason why Ms M cannot explore the alternate legal remedy route via a no win no fee solicitor.

20. We have also not seen any reason why Ms M would not be able to explore legal action due to her neurodiversity. Ms M would receive similar support in her claim via a solicitor as she would do via the complaints process with us. At this point in time, we are satisfied there are potential legal routes available for Ms M to pursue her concerns, which may provide some of the outcomes she seeks.

21. For these reasons, we have not seen reason why Ms M should not explore legal action before returning to us if they are unsuccessful in their claim. We have also not identified any mitigating or exceptional circumstances which would allow us to investigate Ms M’s complaint before exploring potential alternate legal remedy.

22. If Ms M explores legal action and decides it is not the right course of action to take, or takes legal action and still has unresolved issues or outcomes that are not considered or remedied by the courts, she can ask us to consider her complaint again. If she does decide to return to us, she should bring her complaint back to us promptly. This is because we would need to consider our own time limits for a person to complain to us, in line with the ‘Health Service Commissioners Act 1993’.

23. We recognise this will be disappointing for Ms M, given the ongoing concerns she has and the impact this has had on her wellbeing.

1. We have carefully considered Ms M’s complaint about a GP Practice in London (the Practice). We are sorry to hear of how Ms M’s concerns have affected her.

2. Based on the information Ms M has provided for her complaint about the Practice; we consider it to be more suitable for Ms M to explore the availability of an alternate legal remedy at this stage. We have not identified any exceptional circumstances that would prevent Ms M from being able to explore this.