Home > Publications > Selected Cases - Health >
Selected Investigations Completed October 1997 - March 1998 > Part I, Case no. E.1241/96-97
Matters considered: Panel failed to take evidence from General Practitioners and to identify relevant witnesses - panel's report did not meet national requirements
Complaint against:
Suffolk Health Authority
Summary of case
After his wife died, Mr X complained in January 1996 about her care and treatment by her GPs. An independent review was established which took evidence from Mr Y and his son. The review panel did not take direct evidence from the GPs involved but relied instead on evidence from the clinical assessors.
Mr Y complained about that and about the report of the independent review.
Findings
The Ombudsman concluded that the panel would have been better able to test the conflicts of evidence between Mr X and the GPs if they had taken direct evidence from both and from other potential witnesses. The panel chairman considered clinical issues to be a matter solely for the clinical assessors. The Ombudsman disagreed. He upheld the complaint that the panel had acted inappropriately. The panel's report contained little that a reasonable person would readily recognise as 'findings of fact'. The panel discussed whether to make recommendations but decided against doing so through fear that this would lead to disciplinary action. The Ombudsman, criticised the panel's reasoning on that. Mr X was left disillusioned and regarded the independent review as having been biased. The Ombudsman was not surprised that the report had failed to satisfy Mr X, and concluded that the initial judgments by the panel about the conduct of the review significantly contributed to that failure.
Remedy
The law prevented the Ombudsman from recommending another review. The Authority apologised for the shortcomings found and agreed to discuss further with the complainant how to deal with his concerns in an acceptable way.
Previous < Contents > Next
Full text of this investigation
Back to top
|
