A practice in the Stockton-on-Tees area

4. Miss L complains a GP at the Practice did not refer her father for specialist care when his stool sample showed signs of acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) on 22 February 2022.

5. She also complains the GP did not visit her father at home on 7 March when she reported her father’s dark urine and loss of mobility.

6. Miss L says this meant her father’s AML diagnosis and treatment was delayed, and this resulted in his death. She says the excruciating pain her father experienced could also have been avoided if he had appropriate treatment.

7. As an outcome to her complaint Miss L would like service improvements and financial remedy.

8. On 16 February, Mr L had aching, sweats, loose stools and an inability to eat and he spoke to a GP over the phone. The GP diagnosed him with inflamed stomach and intestines (gastroenteritis) and asked him to provide a stool sample. The sample grew a bacteria that causes food poisoning.

9. Mr L then reported his symptoms had got worse, he was struggling to urinate and it was dark with a strong odour. Mr L felt unable to visit the Practice so paramedics went to his home. The Practice offered Mr L a face-to-face appointment on 7 March which he declined.

10. Mr L had an MRI scan on 11 March. This resulted in further tests which led to the diagnosis of AML. This is a type of cancer that affects the blood and bone marrow. Mr L sadly passed away in December.

12. We are an ombudsman provided for, and funded by, the public. We must maintain a balance between achieving remedy for injustices individuals have experienced because an organisation has not acted properly, while ensuring we use our resources to make the most impact.

13. When deciding to investigate a complaint further, we must consider whether doing so would be practical, help reach a satisfactory conclusion, and if there would be any value in providing a response through an investigation.

14. Some complaints can be looked at by both us and a different organisation. We usually consider only one investigation should take place.

15. In this instance, Miss L wants two outcomes – financial remedy and service improvements. She has already complained to the General Medical Council (the GMC) about what happened.

16. The GMC does not recommend financial remedy. However, it is well-placed to improve the practice of doctors if it finds they do not meet relevant standards. It does this by investigating concerns and taking disciplinary action when necessary. This ensures medical professionals remain accountable and patients safety is prioritised.

17. Miss L told the GMC about the actions of the GP named in her complaint. It investigated what happened and the specific actions of the named GP. It considered Mr L’s medical records and got expert advice on what happened from a suitably qualified independent clinician. This is the same as our own investigation process.

18. The GMC decided there were no red flags for AML in February 2022. Mr L was diagnosed with AML less than one month after his first appointment with the GP, and the GP treated Mr L’s initial infection appropriately.

19. The expert added if the infection had happened again then blood tests may have been appropriate. However, there was no indication blood tests were needed in the GP’s consultations.

20. The GMC also considered the decision not to visit Mr L at home on 7 March. It decided examining a patient in a clinical setting is preferable to doing so at home. It added paramedics saw Mr L at home and arranged for Mr L to visit the Practice for a face-to-face appointment that day which it considered was appropriate.

21. If the GMC believed things had gone wrong then it could have recommended appropriate service improvements. As Miss L has specifically named the GP in her complaint, it seems the GMC is well suited to getting these improvements. However, after it investigated what happened and got relevant expert advice on the events it found nothing went wrong. It therefore decided to take no further action.

22. As an appropriate organisation has already investigated Miss L’s complaint, it would not be proportionate for us to repeat the work it has done.

23. We recognise how upsetting these events have been for Miss L. This decision does not take away from the understandable distress she has gone through.

1. We have carefully considered Miss L’s complaint about the Practice and decided not to investigate further.

2. We have seen a different organisation has already looked at the issues raised and found no indication things went wrong. We consider it would not be appropriate for us to repeat another investigation of what happened.

3. We recognise the sad events Miss L has told us about and understand the heartbreak she has experienced.