Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

General Practice archive 2019-2020


Archive has 24 results

  • North Baddesley Surgery (19 018 208)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries General Practice 10-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsmen should not investigate this complaint because it is late. I have not seen sufficient reasons to accept it now.

  • Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust (19 017 290)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries General Practice 10-Mar-2020

    Summary: Mr D complained about the actions of a Care Provider, Trust and Council when they dealt with contact the Care Provider initiated with his late mother without consent when she was in an intermediate care unit. There was fault by the Care Provider and the Trust, but they acted to improve. It is unlikely the Ombudsmen could add to the previous investigations already completed by the authorities complained about. In addition, the Ombudsmen cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants. For these reasons the Ombudsmen should not investigate this complaint.

  • Pleck Health Centre (19 003 492)

    Statement Not upheld General Practice 04-Mar-2020

    Summary: Ms X complained that Walsall Metropolitan Council, Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust and Pleck Health Centre failed to meet safeguarding duties in respect of her late mother, Mrs Y. The agencies responded appropriately to safeguarding alerts and made best interest decisions about Mrs Y's care that considered relevant evidence, including the difference of views amongst family members. The Council was at fault for not feeding back the outcome of its safeguarding investigation to the Pleck Health Centre. This did not cause injustice.

  • The Leys Health Centre (19 007 554)

    Statement Not upheld General Practice 02-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsmen found fault with the care provided to an elderly man by a care home acting on behalf of the Council. The Council agreed to apologise for this fault and pay a financial sum in recognition of the distress this caused. The Ombudsmen were satisfied a GP Practice and Trust that were also involved in the man's care acted without fault.

  • Hereford Medical Group (19 012 735)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries General Practice 19-Feb-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsmen will not investigate Mr K's complaint about the care and treatment his brother received prior to his death because an investigation is unlikely to add to the responses he has already received.

  • Meadowside Family Health Centre (19 008 347)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries General Practice 31-Jan-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsmen will not investigate Mr A's complaint about treatment and care from the Practice and Council in 2016. This is because the complaint is late and I have not seen sufficient reason to accept it now.

  • Summerhill Surgery (18 009 105)

    Statement Upheld General Practice 15-Jan-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsmen consider Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust's (the Trust) communication with Mr C about Mrs D's prognosis was poor which caused confusion and distress. Also, the Trust's lack of care planning for Mrs D on discharge to two care homes caused Mr C uncertainty. Trinity House Care Centre's diabetes care plan lacked detail and did not escalate Mrs D to a GP in a timely manner which caused Mr C distress at witnessing his mother suffer pain and distress. The Ombudsmen consider Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council's (the Council) safeguarding investigation and safeguarding adults review caused Mr C uncertainty and distress. The Council, the Trust and Summerhill Surgery's complaint handling compounded Mr C's distress.

  • Corner Place Surgery (19 004 170)

    Statement Not upheld General Practice 03-Dec-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsmen find no fault in the care a Hospital Trust, Council-funded Care Home and GP Surgery provided to an older patient following hip surgery. The patient's hip became dislocated but, in view of the wider situation, there is no indication this was missed because of poor care.

  • Pembroke Surgery (16 015 030)

    Statement Upheld General Practice 20-Nov-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsmen found fault with the care provided to a woman with complex needs by several health and social care organisations. This included failure to arrange assessments and reviews, failures in transition planning and failure to make appropriate safeguarding referrals. This fault meant opportunities were missed to explore whether the woman had additional care needs. This also resulted in distress and uncertainty for her sister, who is pursuing the complaint on her behalf. The organisations concerned have agreed to take action to remedy the injustice to the complainants.

  • Westwood Surgery (19 003 596)

    Statement Upheld General Practice 12-Nov-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsmen find there was fault on the part of a Surgery in the care it provided to a patient with dementia. It should have done more before prescribing a sedative on a long-term basis, and it should have performed a more thorough examination when the patient became unwell. These faults have left the patient's daughter with uncertainty which, in turn, caused distress. The Surgery has agreed to provide an apology and produce an action plan to help put things right.