NHS in England Closed After Initial Enquiries Search on PHSO website

A practice in the Broadland area

P-004579 · Statement · Decision date: 7 January 2026
Complaint (AI summary)
The Practice refused GP appointments, instructed walk-in centres, declined a urine sample, and would not provide antibiotics for Mr H's pain and undiagnosed condition.
Outcome (AI summary)
Closed. No indication of serious failings were found regarding the Practice's decisions on walk-in centre instruction, urine sample, or antibiotic provision.

Full decision details

The Complaint

4. Mr H complains about aspects of care and treatment a GP Practice in the Norfolk area (the Practice) provided to him between December 2024 and February 2025. He says:

• when he asked to be seen by a GP, he was instead instructed to go to walk in centre, or take Nurofen for the pain • the Practice refused to accept a urine sample from him on 7 January • the Practice would not provide antibiotics on 5 February

5. Mr H states he is experiencing pain and discomfort, and the Practice will not provide any further antibiotics which he feels will make his condition worse. He feels as if the Practice are blocking patients from being able to see a GP. He also feels the Practice did not diagnose his condition properly.

6. By bringing his complaint to us, Mr H would like service improvements to be put in place to make it easier to make an appointment to see a GP.

Background

7. In December 2024, Mr H contacted the Practice due to experiencing pain in different parts of his body. He states he was informed on multiple occasions there were no appointments available, and he should take Nurofen for the pain, and if it worsened to attend a walk in centre.

8. On 7 January 2025, Mr H approached an online GP via his health insurance. The private GP informed him he had prostatitis (inflammation of the prostate gland) and advised him to visit the Practice (NHS) and ask to give a urine sample. He visited the Practice and was informed he was unable to ask for a urine sample, and it needed to be requested from a doctor at the Practice.

9. On 15 January Mr H was informed he had been booked in to see a physiotherapist. When he attended, the physiotherapist told him they were unsure why this appointment had been booked and advised him he needed to see a GP instead.

10. On 23 January Mr H attended an appointment at the Practice. The GP informed him he had prostatitis and prescribed antibiotics.

11. On 5 February Mr H spoke to a member of the reception team, this member of staff recorded that Mr H felt a lot better. The member of reception staff took advice from a clinician, who advised Mr H to wait and see how he felt (this clinician did not see him face to face or speak with him).

12. Later in the day on 5 February Mr H then had a private assessment through health hero, as he said he was not completely better. Health hero prescribed Mr H 14 days of Ciprofloxacin (antibiotics).

Findings

Advice provided regarding attending walk in centre

16. Mr H complains when he asked to be seen by a GP in January, he was instead instructed to go to walk in centre, or take Nurofen for the pain.

17. In its response, the Practice explained it is everyday practice for all GP surgeries to signpost to the walk-in centre when they are at full capacity. Mr H contacted the Practice on 3 January and was offered a routine appointment. He wanted to be seen sooner, so was informed to contact the Practice the following day, or to attend the walk-in centre or contact NHS 111.

18. BMA guidance on safe working states:

• “Practices are obliged by their GMS contract to provide for the reasonable needs of their patients and for the assessment of urgent problems arising in their patients in their practice area. Emergency or urgent problems can be directed to emergency departments, 999, or 111. Patients that can wait should, following assessment, be placed on the waiting list if safe capacity for appointments is exceeded for the day.”

19. We consider the Practice acted in line with the above guidance. It was at capacity for same day appointments so offered Mr H a routine appointment. Mr H was unhappy with this, so in line with the guidance the Practice advised him he could attend the walk-in centre. In considering this, we have not found any indications of failings for this complaint component.

The Practice refused to accept a urine sample on 7 January

20. When Mr H presented at the Practice on 7 January, the Practice refused to accept a urine sample from him.

21. In its response, the Practice explained it was unable to ask for a urine sample and it needed to be requested from a doctor at the Practice. Mr H had been seen by a private online GP through his insurance.

22. The advice provided at the private GP consultation was for Mr H to book a face-to-face appointment at the Practice, not to drop a urine sample in. There is no impact here, as the following day Mr H had a telephone appointment with a GP, a urine sample was sent off, and the results came back normal.

23. GMC guidance states:

• “15 You must provide a good standard of practice and care. If you assess, diagnose or treat patients, you must :a adequately assess the patient’s conditions, taking account of their history (including the symptoms and psychological, spiritual, social and cultural factors), their views and values; where necessary, examine the patient promptly provide or arrange suitable advice, investigations or treatment where necessary refer a patient to another practitioner when this serves the patient’s needs”

24. The Practice acted in line with GMC guidance, it assessed Mr H’s condition and sent off a urine sample. Our adviser explained it would not be in line with the private GP assessment to just turn up at the GP practice with a urine sample with no assessment by the Practice.

25. In considering the above, we have not found any indications of failings for this complaint component.

Antibiotic prescription:

26. Mr H complains the Practice would not provide antibiotics on 5 February. In its response, the Practice explained when Mr H had attended the Practice on 5 February, his symptoms seemed better and he was advised to wait and see if his condition improved, as antibiotics can continue working a few days after a course is completed.

27. NICE guidance on prostatitis states: • “Review antibiotic treatment after 14 days and either stop treatment, or continue for an additional 14 days based on an assessment of history, symptoms, clinical examination, urine and blood tests. Treatment may be required for up to 6 weeks.”

28. This guidance highlights if someone is still showing symptoms, they may need a clinical assessment and a longer course of antibiotics. If they are no longer showing symptoms, they do not.

29. It is recorded in the records on 5 February Mr H spoke to a member of the reception team, this member of staff recorded that Mr H felt a lot better. The member of reception staff took advice from a clinician, who advised Mr H to wait and see how he felt (this clinician did not see him face to face or speak with him).

30. Our adviser explained if the clinician had assessed him, the outcome may have been different. Our adviser explained an adequate assessment did not take place in line with the above NICE guidance.

31. Mr H then had a private assessment through health hero, an online GP as he said he was not completely better (this was several hours after visiting the Practice). Health hero prescribed Mr H 14 days of Ciprofloxacin (antibiotics).

32. The Practice did not carry out an adequate assessment of Mr H’s symptoms on 5 February. Mr H says as a result of the GP not assessing him on 5 February, he experienced pain and discomfort, and and the Practice did not diagnose his condition properly. We cannot link this impact. The private GP prescribed Mr H the antibiotics the same day, so we cannot say the pain and discomfort he experienced was due to the Practice not assessing him adequately.

33. We cannot say that if the Practice had assessed Mr H on 5 February, it would have prescribed him antibiotics.

34. The injustice claimed by the Mr H cannot be linked to the indication of failing we have identified. For this reason, we will not consider this complaint component further.

35. We hope Mr H is reassured that we have taken his concerns seriously.

Our Decision

1. We have carefully considered Mr H’s complaint regarding aspects of the care and treatment he received from a GP Practice in the Norfolk area (the Practice). We are very sorry to hear of the impact the events that happened had on Mr H and the pain and discomfort he has experienced. We recognise how strongly he feels about his complaint.

2. We have seen no indication that anything went seriously wrong with the Practice instructing Mr H to go to the walk-in centre in January 2025. We have also seen no indication of failings in the Practice’s decision to not accept a urine sample from Mr H on 7 January.

3. We also could not link the injustice Mr H claimed in relation to the Practice not providing antibiotics on 5 February, to the indication of failing we have identified.