Summary
C, a prisoner, complained that the partnership reduced and then stopped their prescription of co-codomol (a medication used to treat pain) for possible sciatica without consultation.
The partnership did not did not identify any failings in C’s care. They said that reduction and discontinuation of the co-codomol prescription was a clinical decision. They acknowledged that C would have preferred to be included in this decision, but that this had not been possible in the specific circumstances.
We took independent advice from a GP. We found that C’s prescription had been changed following the opinion of two different GPs. When the decision was made a letter was sent to C informing them of this. While we considered that there should ideally have been prior discussion with C, a letter was sent at the point the decision was made explaining the reasons for the change. In the circumstances, we did not consider this to be unreasonable.
We found that the explanation for the reduction and cessation of C’s prescription appeared reasonable as there was no indication for C to be on regular co-codamol and this was not a medication that generally required a patient to be weaned off slowly. Therefore, we did not uphold C's complaint.
Related reading
View Decision Report 202408118 as a PDF (24.4 KB) Updated: February 18, 2026