Home > Publications > Selected Cases - Health >
Selected Investigations Completed October 1997 - March 1998 > Part I, Case no. E.1803/96-97
Matters considered: Convener’s handling of request for an independent review panel; panel's failure to give proper consideration to oral and written evidence available to it before reaching its findings.
Complaint against: Birmingham Health Authority
Summary of case
The Health Authority was asked to establish an independent review of the clinical management of a patient by the GP and two other GPs. The complainants told the authority in a letter sent in August 1996 that they would "also be pursuing a claim for compensation in the longer term". On 10 December 1996, the panel and the assessors interviewed the complainants and on 19 December the GPs were interviewed by the clinical assessors and the lay chairman. The panel did not take evidence directly from the GPs. The GP considered that the panel gave insufficient consideration to his evidence with the result that he was unfairly criticised in their report. Neither complainant was present during the GP’s consultation with a patient (the matter of the complaint). The patient’s sister was present; but the panel did not take evidence from her. The GP also considered that in view of the complainants’ apparent intention to make a claim for compensation, the convener should not have agreed to their request for an independent review.
Findings
The investigation found that when the convener considered the complainants’ request for an independent review, the Authority had not provided her with a copy of the complainants’letter sent in August. The Ombudsman criticised the Authority for that. He upheld the GP’s complaint about the conduct of the panel. In particular, he criticised the panel for not putting themselves in a position to consider the GP’s evidence fully and for not interviewing the one witness to his consultation with the patient. The Ombudsman concluded that the panel’s findings in respect of the GP’s actions were reached by a significantly flawed process and could not be regarded as reliable.
Remedy
The Authority apologised. It has already reviewed its procedures regarding the provision of papers to the convener and agreed to monitor their effectiveness of the procedures. They agreed to draw the Ombudsman’s findings to the attention of all to whom they were required to send copies of the panel’s report (and anyone else nominated by the GP).
Previous < Contents > Next
Full text of this investigation
Back to top
|
