Health Service Commissioner : first report for session 1982/83 : selected investigations completed April- September 1982.

  • Great Britain. Health Service Commissioner.
Date:
1983
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Health Service Commissioner : first report for session 1982/83 : selected investigations completed April- September 1982. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    167/192 page 165
    (b) (i) the doctor, . . . consents to an investigation, or (ii) the Secretary of State’s consent has been obtained in accordance the procedure indicated in Regulation 5(2) [of the Regulations]. In a medical case the event which gave rise to the complaint must relate to an alleged act or omission by the doctor, not to the date when the complainant became aware of a possible breach of the terms of service. For example, where a patient dies in hospital the event in relation to the family doctor must be some occasion when there was an alleged failure in treatment by the family doctor, not the date of death or some other date when the patient was not under the care of the family doctor’. 9. The administrator said that there were aspects of the complaint which were Clearly within the time limit; but there were others concerning the alleged failure of the FP to act during Mrs A’s pregnancy on information which was available in her medical records at any early stage of the pregnancy ; a failure which the complainant believed may have led to the death of their baby in hospital. He was unsure whether this part of the complaint could be considered within the time-limit or whether it should be dealt with under the procedure for late complaints and he sought the advice of the department. He was told, however, that this was a matter for his FPC to decide ; the department could not make the decision for them as this might prejudice the Secretary of State’s actions should the complainant exercise his right of appeal against the FPC’s decision. The administrator said that whilst he had to have regard to the Regulations and the depart- ment’s guidance he also wanted to ensure, as was his practice, that the complainant’s rights were respected. He had been unable to make up his mind on this issue and decided to leave it until the Form P24 was received from the FP. Unfortunately he omitted to ensure that the receipt of the form (it was received on 6 August) was brought to his notice and this resulted in the complaint being overlooked. 10. The administrator remembered Mrs A telephoning him in November about the complaint ; he had been in a meeting at the time and the conversa- tion was brief. He could not clearly recall details of the conversation but he thought he might have told her that there had been difficulties with the family doctors and also that he had been very busy. He did, however, promise to give the complaint his attention ; but he had not done so. The administrator explained that he, himself, and his office generally were at that time under great pressure of work. In March 1982 he received a letter from the CHC in which he was told that they were concerned at the lack of action by the FPC and that they had referred this complaint to me. He discussed the case with the FPC and MSC chairmen on 11 March and was instructed to obtain the family doctor’s formal observations on Mr A’s complaint so that the MSC chairman could decide whether or not a formal hearing of the MSC was required. He wrote to the family doctors on 31 March shortly after his return from leave. 11. In his written comments to me the administrator said that he accepted entirely the responsibility for the delays in dealing with the complaint and that he regretted the unfortunate lapse and the inconvenience or distress that might have been caused to the complainants. He told my officer that he ‘165
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3