NHS in England Closed After Initial Enquiries Search on PHSO website

A practice in the Leeds area

P-004510 · Statement · Decision date: 18 December 2025
Complaint (AI summary)
Mr U complained the Practice wrongly advised him to notify the DVLA and stop driving due to suspected Obstructive Sleep Apnoea, causing severe stress and financial hardship as an HGV driver.
Outcome (AI summary)
The ombudsman found no failing in the Practice's advice to Mr U about informing the DVLA or stopping driving for his suspected condition.

Full decision details

The Complaint

4. Mr U complains the Practice wrongly told him he needed to inform the DVLA that he had suspected Obstructive Sleep Apnoea Syndrome (OSAS) and that he should not drive.

5. Mr U said as an HGV driver this caused him high levels of stress, worry and anxiety as he was unable to work during this time. Mr U said this affected his income and he was unable to pay his bills.

6. By bringing this complaint to us Mr U would like to be reimbursed £500 as he had to pay privately for a consultation. Mr U would also like to be reimbursed £12,000 due to loss of earnings.

Background

7. Mr U attended the Practice in mid to late January 2024 and reported one occasion of feeling sleepy at the wheel of his HGV truck. The Practice examined Mr U and noted he was at high risk of OSAS. OSAS is a sleep related breathing disorder where a person’s breathing stops and starts whilst sleeping.

8. The Practice documented it suspected Mr U had sleep apnoea and referred him to the sleep service. The Practice documented Mr U needed to inform the DVLA and his work of his suspected diagnosis.

9. Mr U contacted the DVLA and informed them of his suspected diagnosis. DVLA revoked his license and did not reinstate it for a further three months.

Findings

13. 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 seen any indication that something has gone wrong here.

14. Mr U said the Practice wrongly told him he needed to inform the DVLA that he had suspected OSAS. Mr U said he scored five on a sleep apnoea test and therefore the DVLA did not need to be informed. He said this was also confirmed to him in writing by a physiotherapist. Mr U said the Practice should have contacted the sleep clinic for advice as they would have confirmed that due to his sleep scores the DVLA did not need to be informed.

15. The Practice said Mr U reported one occasion of feeling sleepy at the wheel of his HGV truck and he was concerned that he may fall asleep. The Practice said it followed NICE guidance on OSAS and on examination it identified Mr U as being high risk for OSAS. The Practice said based on this it suspected Mr U’s drowsiness was due to OSAS and completed an urgent referral to the sleep clinic.

16. We will first consider whether it was in line with guidance for the Practice to suspect Mr U had OSAS.

17. NICE guidance on OSAS says the clinician should assess a patient for OSAS if they have two or more of the following features:

• snoring • witnessed apnoea’s (breathing temporarily stopping and starting) • unrefreshing sleep • waking headaches • unexplained excessive sleepiness, tiredness or fatigue • nocturia (waking from sleep to urinate) • choking during sleep • sleep fragmentation or insomnia • cognitive dysfunction or memory impairment.

18. It also says OSAS is more prevalent in patients who are overweight or obese and this should be considered when suspecting OSAS.

19. From the records we can see Mr U attended the Practice in January 2024 and reported one instance where he had felt sleepy at the wheel of his HGV truck. We can see Mr U reported he had felt more tired during the winter period, and he queried whether this could have been a side effect to medication he was taking.

20. On examination we can see the Practice documented Mr U had a neck circumference of 53cm, he snored, and he had a BMI of 49. The Practice noted Mr U was unsure whether his breathing stopped while he slept. The Practice noted it suspected Mr U had sleep apnoea which was causing his drowsiness.

21. We think it was in line with NICE guidance on OSAS that the Practice suspected Mr U had OSAS. We can see Mr U had two of the features listed in paragraph 17 - snoring and unexplained tiredness.

22. He was also noted to have a BMI of 49. BMI is when a person’s height and weight is used to determine their body mass index. A normal BMI is between 18.5 and 24.9. A BMI of 30 and above would indicate a person has obesity. Based on this it was in line with guidance for the Practice to suspect Mr U had OSAS.

23. NICE guidance on OSAS says to assess people for suspected OSAS using the Epworth sleepiness Scale (ESS) and to consider using the STOP-Bang questionnaire. It says not to use the ESS alone to determine if a referral is needed, as not all people with OSAS have excessive sleepiness.

24. The ESS consists of eight questions and assesses the daytime sleepiness of a patient during different activities. We can see the Practice completed the ESS and noted Mr U had a score of six. A score of between 6 and 10 indicates a higher-than-normal daytime sleepiness.

25. The STOP-Bang questionnaire also consists of eight questions and looks at the patient’s neck circumference, blood pressure, BMI, snoring, tiredness, age and gender.

26. The Practice also said it completed the STOP-Bang questionnaire which showed Mr U was at high risk of OSAS. We have not seen evidence from the Practice regarding Mr U’s results of the STOP-Bang questionnaire. Our adviser told us Mr U would likely have scored five during his appointment on the STOP-Bang Scale which would put him at high risk for OSAS.

27. It appears the Practice assessed Mr U for OSAS in line with the relevant guidance and identified he was high risk for OSAS. Following this assessment the Practice referred Mr U to the sleep clinic, and this appears to be in line with NICE guidance on OSAS.

28. We can see the Practice also advised Mr U to refrain from driving and to inform the DVLA of his suspected OSAS.

29. DVLA guidance for medical professionals says if a patient has suspected OSAS of any severity they must not drive. It says healthcare professionals should advise the patient of their legal requirement to notify DVLA if they have suffered with ‘sleepiness’ for three months.

30. The Practice advised Mr U to contact the DVLA about his suspected diagnosis which he did. It is important to note the Practice did not make any decisions regarding Mr U’s license or the decision to revoke this. Any decisions made regarding Mr U’s license has been made by the DVLA and not the Practice.

31. We have not seen any indication the Practice failed to act in line with the relevant guidance when advising Mr U not to drive or to contact the DVLA. We can see the DVLA guidance says patients with suspected OSAS should not drive and we can see the Practice advised Mr U of this.

32. It is unclear how long Mr U had been suffering with ‘sleepiness’ for. We can see he reported unexplained tiredness throughout the winter period with a recent instance of falling asleep at the wheel. This would indicate Mr U had been experiencing his symptoms for an extended period which appeared to be worsening.

33. We can see he reported experiencing symptoms throughout winter, which would be approximately three months from the appointment date. Due to his prolonged and worsening symptoms, the Practice’s advice to Mr U to contact the DVLA regarding his suspected diagnosis appears to be in line with DVLA guidance for medical professionals.

34. We recognise this is not the decision Mr U was hoping for, and our decision will be disappointing for him. We understand this was an extremely stressful and worrying time for Mr U as he was unable to work and this caused him a great deal of anxiety. We appreciate this was an extremely challenging period for Mr U and the uncertainty caused him a lot of distress.

35. We have not seen any indication of a failing in the Practice advising Mr U not to drive and to contact the DVLA. We will be taking no further action on this complaint.

Our Decision

1. We have carefully considered Mr U’s complaint about the Practice. We were sorry to learn of Mr U’s concerns. We understand he has been through a difficult and distressing time.

2. We have not seen any indication of a failing in the Practice telling Mr U to inform the DVLA of his suspected diagnosis. We have also not seen any indication of a failing in the Practice advising Mr U to stop driving.

3. We do not want to diminish the seriousness of the issues involved and we thank Mr U for bringing his concerns to our attention. We hope the following paragraphs reassure Mr U that we have considered his complaint fully and carefully before reaching our decision.

Other Decisions About A practice in the Leeds area

P-005115 · 26 Mar 2026
Miss A complains about the Practice and the lack of action it took when she requested an ADHD referral for …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-004682 · 26 Jan 2026
Mrs A complains about the care and treatment provided to her father, Mr R, by the Practice on 13 August …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-004551 · 29 Dec 2025
Ms J complains the Practice did not appropriately treat her perimenopause symptoms and disregarded her concerns based on normal blood …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-003483 · 1 Apr 2025
Mrs O complains the Practice did not complete timely investigations into her husband’s symptoms between 3 March and 27 September …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-003515 · 31 Mar 2025
Miss T complains the Practice failed to provide a good standard of care for her father between January and November …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
View all decisions for this organisation →