NHS in England Closed After Initial Enquiries Search on PHSO website

A practice in the Rushcliffe area

P-003577 · Statement · Decision date: 19 May 2025
Treatment Drugs / medication Therapy access barriers No person-centred care
Complaint (AI summary)
Mr G complained the Practice made an incorrect referral, introduced testosterone therapy, refused blood monitoring, and wouldn't enter a shared care agreement for his transgender care, causing health risks and distress.
Outcome (AI summary)
Closed. Parts of the complaint were outside the time limit. For the shared care agreement, the ombudsman found no indication of wrongdoing.

Full decision details

The Complaint

4. Mr G complains about aspects of care and treatment he has received from the Practice as a transgender teenager, between July 2022 and December 2024.

5. Specifically, he said the Practice: • completed an incorrect referral to the adult gender identify service in July 2022 • are responsible for introducing him to the testosterone replacement therapy, when they completed an initial blood test in October 2022 • would not monitor his blood, as a result of their testosterone use which began in October 2022 • would not enter into a shared care agreement with Gender Plus in 2024.

6. Mr G has told us he is concerned about the risks to his health, if the Practice do not monitor him, while taking testosterone. He believes this is causing unknown damage to his physical health. He said this has caused distress to him and to the whole family. He is worried about his care in the future.

7. Mr G said that the incorrect referral to the adult gender identify service meant he was unable to learn coping mechanisms and caused a delay to his physical transitioning.

8. He said the whole experience has caused him significant distress.

9. He is looking for support from the NHS to monitor or provide gender care and a financial remedy. He is also looking for reimbursement of private healthcare costs, of approximately £2,600. He is also looking to cover potential future costs of approximately £10,000.

Background

10. Mr G began taking testosterone when he was 14 years old.

11. In July 2022, the Practice made a referral to the Gender Identity service (GIDS).

12. In October, the Practice completed an initial blood test for testosterone replacement therapy.

13. In November, Mr G became aware the Practice had referred him to the adult GIDS, not the Children’s GIDS.

14. In December, the Practice referred Mr G to the Children’s GIDS.

15. On 9 March 2023, 21 April and 12 July and 22 March 2024, the Practice wrote to Mr G’s mum, Mrs B, about concerns over Mr G’s care.

16. On 7 June, the Trust Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS) told the Practice that Gender Plus had told Mr G’s family it met all of the NHS criteria to meet a shared care agreement.

17. On 1 October, the Practice responded to Mrs B about a shared care agreement with Gender Plus. The Practice said due to local and national NHS guidance, it could not enter into a shared care agreement with Gender Plus.

Findings

• The Practice completed an incorrect referral to the adult gender identify service in July 2022 • The Practice are responsible for introducing him to the testosterone replacement therapy, when they completed an initial blood test in October 2022 • The Practice would not monitor his blood, as a result of their testosterone use which began in October 2022

20. 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 do so. We have discussed this with Mrs B, Mr G’s mother and representative, to understand the reasons why they could not do so. We have also considered the time the organisation has taken to respond to Mrs B.

21. Mr G first became aware of his concerns in about the incorrect referral in November 2022. He said he also became aware of the issues with the blood tests and monitoring at around the same time. Mr G’s mother, Mrs B brought the complaint to us in April 2025.

22. At this time, these parts of the complaint were one year and five months out of time.

23. During our communication with Mrs B, we asked why there was a delay in bringing the complaint to us. She told us that she was not aware she could bring a complaint to us, until after she made a complaint about her own care in late 2023. She said she then complained about Mr G’s care and treatment, on Mr G’s behalf, in April 2024. The complaint was already five months out of time, when Mrs B complained to the Practice.

24. Mrs B has not provided any further details as to why she did not bring the complaint to us sooner.

25. The Practice said it had communicated with Mrs B with concerns about Mr G’s care on 9 March 2023, 21 April, 12 July, and 22 March 2024. These dates were before Mrs B contacted the Integrated Care Board (ICB) about the Practice. She then returned to the Practice with concerns in August and October.

26. We recognise Mr G has concerns about his gender care and wishes to receive support from his GP. We acknowledge that not being about to access GP support will have made the process difficult for him.

27. We have seen no strong evidence to be able to put our time consideration to one side. We believe that Mr G and his mother, Mrs B could have brought their complaint to us sooner.

the Practice would not enter into a shared care agreement with Gender Plus in 2024.

28. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any indications that something has gone wrong.

29. Mrs B told us they want the Practice to enter into a shared care agreement with Gender Plus to monitor Mr G’s bloods and support his gender care. Gender Plus is a private gender and mental health service, supporting the UK and Ireland.

30. The Practice said it has discussed Mr G’s case with Nottingham and Nottinghamshire integrated Care Board (ICB). It has requested information from Gender Plus and reviewed this in line with guidance for general practice.

31. The ICB told the Practice that a shared care agreement can be entered into with a private practice, if they are providing a commissioned NHS service.

32. The Practice said that as Gender Plus are not providing a commissioned NHS service it is under no obligation to provide an NHS prescription, based on the recommendation of a private specialist.

33. Additionally, the Practice has also referred to the Cass Review, ‘Independent review of gender identity services for children and young people, final report’, April 2024 which says GPs should not be expected to enter into shared care agreements with a private provider.

34. GMC Good medical practice, Section 1.7d says doctors should propose, provide or prescribe drugs or treatment (including repeat prescriptions) only when they have adequate knowledge of the patient’s health and are satisfied the drugs or treatment will meet their needs.

35. BMA guidance also says if a GP does not feel competent to prescribe the requested medication, or they do not know if the medication best serves the patient’s needs, the GP should inform the private provider that the prescription should be provided by a specialist.

36. Additionally, BMA guidance also highlights that shared care with private providers is not recommended due to the general NHS constitution principle of keeping as clear a separation as possible between private and NHS care. All shared care agreements are voluntary, and practices can decline share care requests on clinical and capacity grounds. The responsibility for the patient’s care and ongoing prescribing then remains the responsibility of the private provider.

37. From what we have seen, we believe the Practice is acting in line with the GMC and BMA guidance, as Gender Plus is not providing Mr G with an NHS commissioned service.

38. We understand that Mr G and his family are disappointed by the Practice’s decision. We recognise the distress and financial impact this has had.

39. We understand how difficult it is to make a complaint. We thank Mr G and his family for bringing their concerns to us, and hope we have explained our decision clearly.

Our Decision

1. We have carefully considered Mr G’s complaint about the Practice. We recognise the difficulties he has experienced when trying to access the correct care and treatment. We do not underestimate the impact this has had on him and his family.

2. Having reviewed the information provided parts of the complaint about the incorrect referral to the adult gender identify service, and the blood test issues fall outside of our time limit. We have decided there is not a strong enough reason to put our time limit to one side.

3. Mr G also raised concerns about the Practice not entering into a shared care agreement with Gender Plus. We have seen no indication that anything went wrong.

Other Decisions About A practice in the Rushcliffe area

P-003081 · 13 Oct 2024
Mr I and Mrs Y complain the Practice failed to appropriately assess their mother’s symptoms after she experienced a stroke …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
View all decisions for this organisation →