A practice in the Cheshire West and Chester area

A practice in the Liverpool area (Practice A)

3. Miss I complains about Practice A. Specifically, she says from 1981, it removed diagnoses from her medical records, shared her information with third parties and failed to upload her records to an electronic system.

A practice in the Liverpool area (Practice B)

4. Miss I complains about Practice B. Specifically, she says in 2004 it tampered with her medical records, removed diagnoses and shared her information with third parties.

A practice in the Cheshire area (Practice C)

5. Miss I complains about Practice C. Specifically, she says in 2005 it tampered with her medical records, removed diagnoses, and produced a summary care record which was shared on a national database.

6. Miss I says as a result of her complaints she did not know she had a highly genetic and inherited condition (ADHD) that she passed onto her children. She told us her children have been removed from her care on the basis she has mental health conditions. She says she has been psychologically affected and subjected to unnecessary assessments resulting in PTSD. Miss I says she has suffered financial losses, and her reputation has been ruined.

7. In resolution to her complaints, Miss I seeks an apology, service improvements and level six financial compensation.

8. Miss I's complaint dates back to 1981 (when she was aged 8). Miss I had been under the care of the paediatric team as she was displaying difficult behaviour. The paediatric team referred Miss I to a child psychiatrist. The child psychiatrist reviewed Miss I and wrote a letter to Miss I’s paediatrician stating it was their opinion she likely had hyperkinetic syndrome (now ADHD).

9. Miss I told us she was never formally assessed or diagnosed with hyperkinetic syndrome at that time and therefore has never received any treatment or support throughout her life. She says since 1981 to the present day her medical records have been incorrect and the Practices she has registered with should have recorded this diagnosis on her records.

10. In 2020 Miss I's children were removed from her care as she was struggling to cope with their behaviour. Miss I underwent a mental health assessment at the request of the court. The court appointed psychiatrist decided she did not have ADHD and instead had mental health conditions which Miss I did not agree with. Miss I believes it was better for the court to say she had mental health issues rather than ADHD so the court could justify removing her children.

11. In January 2021, Miss I received her medical records. She became aware in November 2021 hyperkinetic syndrome had been mentioned by a doctor in her records in 1981. Miss I paid for a private ADHD assessment, and the private psychiatrist diagnosed her with ADHD. This diagnosis was confirmed by an NHS psychiatrist in 2023.

14. The ‘Health Service Commissioners Act 1993’ (the Act) is a law that sets out our role, responsibilities and the things we must consider as the final step in the complaints process.

15. The Act says we should not investigate a complaint if it is brought to us more than one year after the affected person first became aware of their reason to complain, unless we consider there is a good reason to do so.

16. After considering the evidence available to us, we understand Miss I received her medical records in January 2021 following court proceedings to remove her children from her care. In her complaint form to us she said she became aware in November 2021 a doctor had written in a letter (in 1981 when she was aged 8) it was his opinion she likely had hyperkinetic syndrome (ADHD).

17. We spoke to Miss I and asked her why she waited two years and six months to complain to the GP Practices (in May 2024) when she was aware there was an issue in November 2021.

18. During our conversation, Miss I told us her date of knowledge was actually in May 2024, as it was not until she received her electronic medical records in 2024, she became aware there was an issue.

19. We consider Miss I did not need to wait to receive her electronic medical records to realise there was a potential issue.

20. Miss I told us she was never informed she might have ADHD and so never received any support or treatment for it throughout her life. Miss I must therefore have known in November 2021 when she saw the letter mentioning hyperkinetic syndrome that there was potentially an issue with her medical records.

21. Miss I complained to a Trust about the same concerns in January 2022. We therefore can see Miss I was aware she had reason to complain in November 2021 and could have contacted her GP Practices at this time to obtain further information and make her complaints (which she eventually did in 2024).

22. Miss I knew she had cause to complain to the GP Practices in November 2021, therefore her complaint was brought to us outside of our 12-month time limit. To be in time, Miss I needed to bring her complaint to PHSO before November 2022. Miss I brought her complaints about the Practices to PHSO on 5 February 2025 therefore her complaint is two years and two months out of time.

23. During our consideration of Miss I’s complaint about the Trust, Miss I explained she did not approach PHSO sooner than January 2025 because the Trust had decided to speak to its legal team (although she provided no evidence to support this). She also stated she was constantly chasing the Trust for answers which it did not provide. The emails Miss I provided to support this however, were from 2024 and 2025.

24. We decided Miss I’s complaint about the Trust was brought to us outside our time limit as she had a final response letter from the Trust signposting her to PHSO in December 2022.

25. Miss I could have contacted PHSO at any time from December 2022 and chose not to explore this option. We consider this information is relevant to Miss I’s complaints about the GP Practices as she was made aware of PHSO in December 2022 and could have contacted us for advice about her complaints at this time.

26. With all the above in mind, we have not seen enough justification for us to set aside our time limit. There was a significant gap of two years and six months in which Miss I could have explored the issues with her medical records with the Practices or come to PHSO for advice.

27. While we recognise this may be disappointing for Miss I, it is important we consider and act within the law and we regret any further upset this decision may cause.

1. We have carefully considered Miss I’s complaint about the Practices. We understand Miss I’s complaint is very important to her and recognise how difficult this experience has been.

2. We have decided Miss I’s complaint falls outside of our 12 month time limit and we are not persuaded it is reasonable to set the time limit to one side in this case. We recognise this may be disappointing for Miss I. We explain the reasons for our decision below.