A practice in the Hastings area

Practice A

2. Ms A complains staff at Practice A failed to carry out appropriate diabetes testing and follow laboratory recommendations since November 2022.

Practice B

3. Ms A complains staff at Practice B failed to follow the advice of the hospital endocrinology team in October 2025. Ms A says they also failed to follow-up with the hospital for advice in a timely manner between June and October 2025.

4. Ms A says due to the delays in her care, she has suffered a range of symptoms for around three years. These include excruciating nerve pain, frequent urination, frequent waking at night, thirst, dizzy spells, generally feeling very unwell, and shaking due to low sugar dips.

5. Ms A describes the pain as unbearable. It prevented her from sleeping, and medication did not work. She felt permanently unwell and feared leaving the house as she did not know whether she would experience severe symptoms where she could not access support.

6. Ms A experienced urine infections and a mesenteric inflammation (inflammation within the abdomen) for which she ended up in hospital in 2025. A recent scan in early 2026, also showed changes to the grey matter of her brain. Ms A believes these may have been caused due to having high blood sugar levels for a prolonged period of time. This has not been confirmed by a medical professional.

7. Ms A is seeking an apology and explanation of what happened, service changes on how both Practices manage patients with diabetes, and compensation for the distress and impact to her health.

8. Ms A told us that for a long time Practice A monitored her for pre-diabetes by blood tests. Ms A has a genetic blood condition known as alpha thalassemia. This condition means some of her haemoglobin (a protein within the blood) does not work properly.

9. In 2025 Ms A obtained a copy of her medical records and noticed that since November 2022 her blood tests have had a note from the laboratory which indicates a HbA1c test (a blood test commonly used to diagnose and monitor diabetes) is not reliable in people with alpha thalassemia.

10. Ms A says since 2022 she has experienced several diabetes symptoms including severe nerve pain, frequent urination, frequent waking at night, thirst, dizzy spells, and shaking. She informed staff at Practice A of these throughout her care.

11. After Ms A informed Practice A of the issue with the HbA1c test, staff reached out to the Hospital’s endocrinology team in April 2025. The advice came back at the end of April stating Practice A should carry out a fructosamine test (a different blood test which can also be used to diagnose and monitor diabetes).

12. The Practice did the fructosamine test and sent it a hospital in London on 30 April. The test came back to the Practice on 8 May showing a result above the normal range. The Practice reached out to the Hospital’s endocrinology team for further advice on 2 June.

13. Ms A changed GPs to Practice B on 26 June, as she was unhappy with the treatment she received at Practice A. Ms A told us Practice B said it would contact the Hospital by the end of July if they had not heard back on the advice request. When Ms A contacted Practice B on 27 July, staff pushed the date to contact the Hospital to August.

14. Practice B followed up with the Hospital on 12 August. Practice B did not receive a response and did not follow-up again. After Ms A complained to the Hospital, Practice B received the advice on 23 October. The advice suggested Practice B do an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT – a test where patients have a fasting blood test, then drink a glucose drink before having another blood test). Practice B informed Ms A they do not do this test on 13 November. Instead, a doctor in Practice B made the clinical decision that a HbA1c test was appropriate given Ms A’s symptoms.

15. Ms A has since attended an appointment at the Hospital and received a diagnosis of diabetes. She is receiving treatment and her condition has improved.

18. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has the option to take legal action, unless we consider this is unreasonable in the circumstances. We have discussed this with Ms A 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.

19. Ms A told us about the potential long-term impact the lack of treatment could have on her. She considers her blood sugar may have been high from November 2022 until early 2026 when she was finally diagnosed with diabetes. She says Practice A potentially failed to acknowledge advice from the laboratory for over two years, and Ms A does not think they appropriately followed up on her worsening symptoms.

20. Ms A also explained how the actions of Practice B delayed her care further. She says Practice B did not follow up the Hospital’s advice for two months. Once they received the advice, a Doctor in Practice B made the clinical decision not to follow it. Because of this, Ms A’s diagnosis and care was delayed until early 2026. Ms A continued experiencing distressing symptoms during this time, and her blood sugar remained high.

21. It appears there is a clinical negligence action open to Ms A. Negligence, in law, is an act or failure to act (omission), that does not meet the level of appropriate care expected, which results in injury or loss. If a doctor or health professional is negligent when giving you medical treatment, this is called 'clinical negligence'.

22. The law says if someone has a legal remedy available we should not investigate the case, unless we consider it is not reasonable to expect the person to pursue a legal remedy. We therefore carefully considered whether there are any reasons that would make exploring taking legal action not a reasonable option for Ms A. To do that we considered whether legal action would address what Ms A is trying to achieve.

23. Legal action could allow for a financial remedy. Ms A told us she is looking for a high financial remedy. This amount may be higher than we would recommend if we upheld this complaint. Legal action (if successful) may lead to a higher award (covering general and special damages) and could consider the ongoing and future impact on Ms A’s health. Successful legal action may also get the admission of failings Ms A is looking for.

24. Ms A is also looking for an apology and service improvements. Though these would not be directly achievable through that process, they are a potential side effect of successful legal action. Organisations may apologise if they are found to have been negligent. They may also take action to stop this from happening again. It therefore appears legal action could achieve the outcomes she is seeking.

25. Lastly, we discussed whether there are any barriers in taking legal action. Ms A expressed concerns about going through the legal process, as she is tired and this may delay outcomes. We appreciate her concerns in this. We explained the process of pursuing legal action is similar to ours. We noted that as solicitors would be acting on her behalf it is likely this would not be too challenging, and interaction is likely to be by telephone and email in the first instance in a similar way to our own. Ms A did not advise of any other barriers in exploring the legal avenue.

26. If Ms A explores legal action and is not able to get legal representation, 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.

27. 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’. This says we should not consider complaints made to us later than a year after someone became aware of their concerns, unless we consider there is a good reason for the delay.

28. We are very sorry to hear about the delays Ms A experienced getting a diagnosis of diabetes and how this has affected, and continues to affect, her health. We thank her for bringing her concerns to us. We hope this statement clearly explains why we will not be considering her concerns further at this time.

1. We have carefully considered Ms A’s complaint about Two GP practices in the Hastings area. We are very sorry to hear about the symptoms Ms A has experienced due to the delays in her care and the impact this had, and continues to have, on her health. Having reviewed the available evidence, we consider Ms A could take legal action on the matters she brought to us. Therefore, we will take no further action.