NHS in England Closed After Initial Enquiries Search on PHSO website

A practice in the Tower Hamlets area

P-001993 · Statement · Decision date: 31 May 2023
Complaint (AI summary)
Miss I complained a GP made rude, personal comments about her weight and questioned her child's ethnicity during a post-natal check-up, causing mental distress.
Outcome (AI summary)
The Ombudsman closed the case, finding the Practice had sufficiently rectified the situation by accepting responsibility and apologising.

Full decision details

The Complaint

3. Miss I complains about the Practice’s six-week post-natal check-up in March 2021. She complains a GP:

• made rude, personal and inappropriate comments while trying to take her blood pressure • questioned the ethnicity of her child.

4. Miss I says her mental health has suffered because of this. She says the comments about her weight led her to have negative thoughts about her body. Miss I feels let down by the GP and has lost trust in doctors.

5. Miss I said she has had panic attacks whenever she has spoken to this GP again. She would like financial compensation for her distress.

Background

6. In February 2021 Miss I gave birth to her second child. On 10 March she attended the Practice for a six-week post-natal check-up. The GP attempted to take Miss I’s blood pressure three times but the machines they used did not work. Miss I told us the GP made comments about her weight that she found uncomfortable.

7. Miss I also told us the GP made inappropriate comments while trying to record her baby’s ethnicity. She made a complaint to the Practice later that day.

Findings

10. Before we decide if we should do a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the event complained about had a negative effect on the person that the organisation has not put right. We have done this and think the Practice has already done enough to put right the impact of these events.

11. The Practice accepted the care Miss I received during her check-up fell below the expected standard. Miss I says when the GP could not get the blood pressure monitor to work they said to her, ‘I think you’re the problem. I think you should come back when you have lost weight’. The Practice apologised for these comments. It described the comments as ‘off the cuff’.

12. Miss I told us the GP questioned her about her baby’s skin colour after Miss I explained both she and her partner have mixed heritage. The Practice accepted the GP could have dealt with this better. But the Practice does not link what happened during the check-up with Miss I’s claimed impact of a decline in her mental health.

13. We are sorry to hear about Miss I’s experience and the effect it had on her. We appreciate Miss I went to her Practice at a time when she was feeling quite vulnerable, having just given birth to her second child in three years. Miss I told us she had been feeling quite low and she planned to speak to the GP about her mental health during the check-up.

14. The Practice asked another doctor to investigate Miss I’s complaint. This is in line with our ‘Principles of Good Complaint Handling’. The Practice sent its first complaint response to Miss I within 40 days of getting her complaint, in line with its own policy.

15. Our ‘Principles for Remedy’ say organisations should quickly identify and acknowledge when things have gone wrong and apologise if there has been poor service. An apology means:

• acknowledging the failure • taking responsibility for it • explaining clearly why it happened • expressing sincere regret for any injustice or hardship caused.

16. The Practice agreed with Miss I that the GP’s comments were not appropriate. It also agreed the GP did not address the question of ethnicity in an appropriate way, and it apologised on the GP’s behalf.

17. Our ‘Principles for Remedy’ also recommend:

• changing procedures to prevent the same thing happening again • training • supervising staff.

18. In its first response, the Practice suggested a different way to accurately identify the baby’s ethnicity could have been used. The Practice also said the GP who saw Miss I had spent time reflecting on Miss I’s experience and had ‘used the complaint as a learning experience’.

19. We consider these actions show the Practice has acted in line with our principles. These actions are typical of what we would expect an organisation to do when making improvements after a complaint has been made.

20. We appreciate how upsetting Miss I found the comments about her weight and ethnicity of her baby. We understand she felt unsupported but uncomfortable to speak to her GP because of what happened.

21. During the appointment the GP asked Miss I about her mental health and wellbeing. The GP completed a GAD-2 questionnaire (a screening technique used to monitor generalised anxiety disorder) and Miss I’s score (0/6) did not give any cause for concern.

22. We looked at Miss I’s medical records and notes made during appointments she had after the one on 10 March. At some of these appointments we can see she was asked about her health and wellbeing. Notes from a consultation on 30 March, three weeks after the appointment complained about, say Miss I ‘denies feeling depressed, sad, or anxious’.

23. Alongside the routine check-ups Miss I had, she also contacted the Practice many times in the six months after the events she is complaining about. As an asthma patient, Miss I regularly contacts the Practice for prescriptions, and in the first few months after the birth she experienced bad migraines. During this time the records show she had telephone conversations or face-to-face appointments with different Practice staff.

24. We appreciate Miss I’s reluctance to speak up on 10 March about how she was feeling. We can see she had many other opportunities to speak to different staff about this issue. We think she could have spoken to any of the staff about her mental health concerns.

25. Having considered all the information, we are persuaded the Practice has been open and honest when investigating this complaint. We have seen the Practice identified where things went wrong and took action to put it right. We consider the Practice’s actions to be enough to put right Miss I’s experience.

26. We have also seen Miss I was dealing with mental health concerns before the appointment she is complaining about. The Practice actively monitored her physical and mental wellbeing in the months that followed, giving her many opportunities to discuss any concerns she had.

27. We thank Miss I for bringing this complaint to us. For the reasons explained, we will not be investigating the complaint further.

Our Decision

1. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has carefully considered Miss I’s complaint about a practice in the Tower Hamlets area (the Practice). We have considered the evidence and decided the Practice has already put right what happened by accepting what went wrong and apologising. We will not take further action on her complaint. We explain the reasons for this below.

2. We understand that what happened caused Miss I significant upset and distress and we are sorry to hear this.

Other Decisions About A practice in the Tower Hamlets area

P-005008 · 9 Mar 2026
Mr P complains between 2021 and 2024 a Practice in the London Borough (the Practice) mismanaged his medication. He also …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-003909 · 26 Jul 2023
Ms E complains about her experience when going to the Practice for her second COVID-19 vaccination.
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-001757 · 31 Jan 2023
Ms G complains the Practice misdiagnosed her hearing loss and did not treat it as a medical emergency.
Closed After Initial Enquiries
View all decisions for this organisation →