A medical practice in the Hartlepool area

4. Mr R complains GPs at the Practice refused to issue a prescription of eye drops when he had a flare up in May 2021.

5. Mr R says the delays caused impaired vision to his left eye. He also says he now has blurry floaters, has to wear long distance glasses and is unable to drive in the dark as he cannot see the left side of the road. He says his eyes are now sensitive to light and he often has to wear sunglasses.

6. Mr R wants the Practice to admit its failings and pay him financial compensation.

7. Mr R has a history of eye infections.

8. He reported an eye infection to his GP Practice on 24 May 2021 and asked for chloramphenicol (antibiotic) eye drops. The doctor told him he could buy these over the counter and if the Practice was to prescribe them, a further investigation of his condition would be needed.

9. Mr R called the Practice two more times explaining further symptoms and asking for the prescription. The GP agreed to prescribe the eyedrops on 26 May 2021.

10. On 4 June 2021, Mr R contacted the Practice to explain his worsening symptoms and that Sunderland Eye Infirmary (SEI) would only see him if he had a GP referral.

11. The GP called Mr R back on 9 June 2021 to tell him he should make a GP appointment to assess his condition and decide if a referral to SEI was needed.

12. Mr R tried to contact the Practice on 6 July 2021. He spoke to a receptionist on 23 July 2021 and was given a telephone appointment with a GP for the same day.

13. Mr R explained to the GP he felt he had to fight to get some treatment. The GP agreed to prescribe chloramphenicol for seven days and advised Mr R he would need a medical review if his symptoms did not clear.

14. Mr R took the eye drops for two weeks without improvement. He called SEI for help and it told him he would need a GP referral for it to take on his care.

15. On 16 August 2021, Mr R attended A&E, where a doctor prescribed chloramphenicol. Mr R also contacted the GP Practice on 18 August 2021 and a telephone appointment was arranged. The GP called and set up a referral to SEI.

16. Mr R was seen by SEI the next day and was diagnosed with probable inflammatory keratitis (inflammation of the cornea).

18. The law (Health Service Commissioners Act, 1993) says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has (or had) the option to take legal action, unless we consider this is (or was) unreasonable in the circumstances. We have discussed this with Mr R to understand his circumstances and the outcomes he wants. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed, but whether it would be a reasonable option to look in to.

19. Mr R is only seeking compensation as an outcome to his complaint. He has confirmed he is seeking more than £10,000.

20. We discussed alternative legal remedy (ALR) with Mr R and we explained, by law, we may not be able to investigate his complaint if we believe he has an ALR.

21. Mr R told us there are no barriers to him pursuing legal action and he would be prepared to look into this if that was our decision.

22. Therefore, we consider it is reasonable for Mr R to pursue an ALR to attempt to achieve the outcomes he is seeking. He has an ALR as this is a potential clinical negligence claim and he has confirmed there are no barriers to him pursuing this.

1. We have carefully considered Mr R’s complaint about a medical Practice in the Hartlepool area (the Practice). We are sorry to learn of the events from May 2021 and the deterioration of Mr R’s eyesight, which we recognise has been very distressing for him.

2. Mr R thinks the GPs at the Practice were negligent in their care and he would like a large amount of financial compensation.

3. Mr R told us there are no barriers to him pursuing legal action. We are unable to investigate this complaint as Mr R has the option of taking legal action, and it is reasonable for him to do this.