Health Service Commissioner : second report for session 1977-78 : investigations completed December 1977-March 1978.

  • Great Britain. Health Service Commissioner.
Date:
1978
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Health Service Commissioner : second report for session 1977-78 : investigations completed December 1977-March 1978. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    63/184 page 61
    reply the complainant thought the matter so complex and that he had so little hope of succeeding with his claim that he again approached his Member of Parliament, who wrote to me on 21 March. 4. I was unable to investigate that part of the complaint concerning the refusal of family practitioners to treat the complainant’s wife as a National Health Service patient, since the actions of doctors taken in connection with the services they provide under contract with family practitioner committees is outside my jurisdiction. Those aspects of the complaint which I was able to investigate were that: (a) the reply from FPC 1 was inadequate and did not explain the need to complain within the statutory period of eight weeks laid down in the National Health Service (Service Committees and Tribunal) Regula- tions 1974; (6) the delay by FPC 2 in replying to his letter was excessive and the reply received was inadequate. Investigation (a) The complaint that the reply from FPC I was inadequate 5. In his reply to the complainant the administrator said he was sorry the complainant had been unable to obtain the services of a doctor under National Health Service arrangements, but regretted that the Service was unable to refund any charges incurred as part of private treatment. He said he understood from the administrator of FPC 2 that doctors in the holiday town were most reluctant to accept holiday visitors for National Health Service treatment, but pointed out that doctors were free to refuse to accept patients as temporary residents if they so wished. He said he would be happy to explain any point which seemed unclear but suggested that, if the complainant wished to go into the matter in depth, he should contact the administrator of the FPC 2. 6. The administrator of FPC 1 told my officer that the complainant’s letter was unusually brief and contained very little information about the nature of the complaint. He agreed that he might have dealt with it by sending the letter to FPC 2, telling the complainant that he had done so, but he felt there was in- sufficient information in it to justify such action. He also felt it would be more helpful to show an interest and offer some advice, but agreed that, in retrospect, it might have been better to adopt the first alternative. He had not referred to the eight week rule governing the submission of complaints to FPC’s as he had taken the letter as an application for reimbursement of fees rather than as a complaint. In any case, he had assumed that the complainant would take his advice and contact FPC 2 without delay. He said that the sentence in his reply that ‘doctors in [the holiday town] are most reluctant to accept holiday visitors for NHS treatment’ had been made in error. He had made such a comment when discussing the case with his administration officer, whom he had asked to deal with the reply and who had sent the letter, but he had not intended that it should be included. Had he seen the letter before it was sent he would have deleted the sentence; nevertheless, he took full responsibility for his officer’s action. He confirmed that the comment had not been prompted by information from FPC 2, but arose from impressions of discontent he had himself gained from fellow holidaymakers who had required emergency attention when he had been on holiday.
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3