10. Mrs Z considers the provider received a stroke referral for Mr Z and should have actioned it.
11. In a letter from the provider to Mrs Z dated 20 March 2025, the provider said Mr Z was not referred to it at the time of his stroke.
12. In a letter to Mrs Z on 6 June 2025, the provider said it was not aware of Mr Z’s stroke in June 2024. The provider stated its stroke nurses enter the stroke wards on a weekly basis and maintain regular contact with them. The provider said it was not contacted around the time of Mr Z’s stroke, and its staff were unaware of this.
13. In our correspondence with the provider, it explained it did not receive a referral when Mr Z had a stroke in June 2024. The provider said a referral was made to its speech therapy team in November 2024. However, due to the origin of the issue, it was agreed with the referrer (a different organisation) that Mr Z should be re-referred to the acute speech and language therapy team, and his care would continue with them.
14. Good Medical Practice says, in ‘providing good clinical care’, doctors should ‘promptly provide (or arrange) suitable advice, investigations or treatment where necessary’. This means we would expect the provider’s staff to action any referral they received from a hospital.
15. In this case, as the provider did not receive a referral, we see no breach of Good Medical Practice.
16. We appreciate we have conflicting accounts from Mrs Z and the provider on whether the provider received a referral. Having reviewed the available evidence, we find the provider’s account more compelling.
17. We saw the provider’s letters in March and June 2025 consistently explained it did not receive a stroke referral regarding Mr Z. It maintains this position now.
18. We asked the provider to send us, from the records it holds for Mr Z, any stroke referral made to its service. It said it could not do so because it received no such referral. As it could not do so, this adds to the evidence it received no referral.
19. At the same time, the provider was able to give us specific details about referrals it did receive about Mr Z. For example, about his speech and language referrals. This suggests it kept accurate records of referrals other services sent the provider. All this, and the absence of stroke referral paperwork, points to the provider never receiving a referral regarding Mr Z’s stroke.
20. For this reason, we have found no indications the provider failed to act on any stroke referral it received. This means we see no evidence the provider got things wrong on this matter.
21. We are sorry to hear about the stressful time Mr Z has gone through. We hope our decision provides Mrs Z and Mr Z with assurance about their complaint, and we gave it careful consideration.