Summary
Mr C complained about the care and treatment he received from the practice. In particular, Mr C complained that the practice did not perform more thorough examinations which he said resulted in a delay in him being diagnosed with cancer.
We took independent advice from a GP. We found that the practice failed to examine and document Mr C's sore throat at a consultation. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. However, we found no evidence that the examination of Mr C's sore throat would have changed the practice's management plan for his symptoms or have an effect on his eventual diagnosis or clinical outcome.
Mr C also complained that the practice failed to handle his complaint reasonably. We found that there was an unreasonable delay in responding to Mr C's complaint and that the practice did not provide a copy of the Complaints Handling Procedure (CHP) to him promptly. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.
Recommendations
What we asked the organisation to do in this case: Apologise to Mr C for failing to examine his sore throat at a consultation, the delay in responding to his complaint and failing to provide the CHP promptly. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
What we said should change to put things right in future: Patients should receive full and appropriate examinations based on their reported symptoms and these should be documented.
In relation to complaints handling, we recommended: Complaints should be handled in line with the model CHP. The model CHP and guidance can be found here: www.valuingcomplaints.org.uk/handling-complaints/complaints-procedures/nhs.
Related reading
View Decision Report 201802880 as a PDF (25.87 KB) Updated: January 23, 2019