A practice in the Buckinghamshire area

4. Dr E complains about the lack of care and treatment he received from the Practice from 16 July to September 2021. He complains the GP failed to give him a face-to-face appointment three times and did not diagnose a serious heart condition.

5. Dr E says it has been a very distressing time and he feels he could have died had the condition not been detected. He says this has caused emotional stress and anxiety for him and his family. He wants the Practice to apologise, make service improvements and pay him financial compensation.

6. Dr E felt unwell and had problems with his ears, feeling breathless, losing weight and sweating through the night. He called the Practice for an appointment on 13 July 2021. The GP did a telephone consultation and prescribed him antibiotics.

7. Dr E felt unwell and called the Practice again on 16 July. The same GP had another telephone consultation with him. Dr E says the GP told him his previous mental health problems caused anxiety, triggering his symptoms. The GP did not arrange to examine him and ordered more blood tests before diagnosing a respiratory condition. Dr E went to the Practice to have his ears checked on 19 July.

8. Dr E phoned the Practice and asked for tests to be arranged. The GP arranged a chest X–ray and tests on 17 August. Dr E called the Practice on 19 August and had a telephone consultation with the GP, who prescribed an inhaler. Dr E says he called the Practice again on 25 August because he was still losing weight and having breathing issues. He asked for a face-to-face appointment, but the Practice said no.

9. A GP set up a face-to-face consultation on 9 September. Dr E’s blood test results had not yet been processed. The GP spoke to a haematology registrar (specialist in blood) who said Dr E needed an urgent CT scan of his chest, abdomen and pelvis. The Practice made a referral.

10. Dr E expressed his concern over his appointment being on 27 September and told the GP he would consult a private haematologist. Dr E paid privately to see a consultant on 23 September, as he was worried about his worsening symptoms.

11. Dr E had a CT scan on 27 September. He was admitted to hospital on 30 September and had an aortic valve replacement (one of the four valves that control blood flow in the heart) on 25 October. Dr E stayed in hospital until 15 November.

13. The law says a person needs to make their complaint to us within a year of becoming aware of the problem. We cannot investigate complaints brought to us after one year, unless we consider there is a good reason to.

14. Dr E was aware of a problem on 16 July 2021 when the Practice would not give him a face-to-face appointment and when he was not diagnosed until 23 September. We have taken 23 September as the date when he knew something was wrong.

15. This means to be within the 12‑month time limit he needed to come to us by 23 September 2022. Dr E did not approach us with a complaint until January 2023. This means he brought his complaint to us four months outside of the time limit.

16. We discussed this with Dr E to understand the reasons why he could not bring his complaint to us sooner.

17. Dr E first complained to the Practice on 16 February 2022. It responded on 25 February. He complained a second time on 13 April, and the Practice responded on 26 May. He complained a third time on 10 June and the Practice sent a final response on 16 June. It took the Practice four months to investigate three complaints. The Practice does not seem to have caused any delays to affect when Dr E could come to us.

18. We understand Dr E was recovering from his operation and he took five months after his diagnosis to make his first complaint. This was a significant amount of time.

19. We have seen that Dr E approached a solicitor on 23 April to get advice on clinical negligence. They responded on 16 July saying they would not take the case.

20. We are satisfied Dr E was aware of our service and our time limit in May because the Practice gave our details in its second response. Dr E specifically said in his third complaint to the Practice on 10 June that he did not want to contact us.

21. There was a delay of six months between Dr E getting the final response on 16 June 2022 to approaching us on 11 January 2023. This is a considerable amount of time and has made this complaint out of time. Had he complained to us in June, his complaint would have been in time.

22. We understand this complaint has been difficult for Dr E but we have not seen reason enough for the delays or evidence that he was actively pursuing his complaint.

23. It is important we consider and act within the law and we regret any further upset this decision may cause. We hope this statement clearly explains the reasons why we will not be considering the complaint further. We are sorry for any additional upset caused by this decision.

1. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has carefully considered Dr E’s complaint about a practice in the Buckinghamshire area (the Practice). We understand from what Dr E told us he was unwell with symptoms and he was confused and frustrated when trying to get a face-to-face appointment at the Practice. Dr E also told us he was very upset and concerned as the GP did not diagnose his symptoms. We are sorry to hear about the impact this had.

2. Having considered the complaint, it falls outside of our 12-month time limit. We have considered the reasons for any gaps in time that stopped Dr E from coming to us sooner. Unfortunately, we have not seen evidence of strong enough reasons for us to put our time limit to one side. We will not consider the complaint further.

3. We are sorry for any further distress this may cause and hope our explanation below shows how we have fully considered this.