Summary
Ms C, an advocacy worker, complained to us on behalf her client (Mr A) about the care and treatment Mr A received at a consultation when he disclosed details of his mental ill health. Ms C said that the GP did not make eye contact with Mr A and rushed through the consultation. Ms C also complained that Mr A was subsequently removed from the practice list after they submitted a complaint.
We took independent advice from a GP. We were unable to comment on the amount of eye contact made during the consultation as there was no evidence in relation to this. We noted, however, that the GP had stated that they would try to learn from this. The practice had also stated that the consultation took longer than the ten minutes allocated. We found that the practice had a lot of history available for Mr A and the decision to decline referral to psychiatric services was based on their knowledge of Mr A and his medical history. We considered that the care and treatment provided to Mr A at the consultation was reasonable and we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.
In relation to the complaint that the practice unreasonably removed Mr A from their list, we found that the practice should have issued a warning letter to Mr A before removing him from their list. We upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint.
Recommendations
What we asked the organisation to do in this case: Apologise to Mr A for the failure to issue a warning before removing him from their practice list. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
Consider any application to re-register on the practice list received from Mr A.
What we said should change to put things right in future: A breakdown in a doctor/patient relationship should be managed in line with the General Medical Council's guidance and the relevant regulations.
We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.
Related reading
View Decision Report 201900411 as a PDF (27.05 KB) Updated: July 22, 2020