PSOW Individual Decisions

Ms A complained that the Practice failed to respond to aspects of the complaint she submitted in June 2025. The Ombudsman found that, while the Practice had responded, it had failed to respond to all of the concerns raised. The Ombudsman said this caused uncertainty and frustration for Ms A and decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Practice’s agreement to, within 2 weeks, offer an apology to Ms A for not addressing all the concerns and explain why, in addition to also providing a complaint response that responds to the concerns that were not addressed originally.

Ms A complained that a GP Practice in the area of Powys Teaching Health Board (“the Practice”) did not provide a response to her complaint, submitted in June 2025. She also complained about the behaviour of a staff member in July 2024 and a warning letter sent to her aunt and uncle. The Ombudsman decided that nothing further could be achieved in respect of the behaviour of a staff member and the warning letter. The Practice’s actions had been reasonable. However, it was noted that after Ms A had been invited to submit a complaint, it was then not responded to. Whilst the Ombudsman acknowledged the Practice’s position, it was decided that a letter to Ms A in response was needed. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Practice’s agreement to, within 2 weeks, provide Ms A with a letter in response to her complaint submitted on 19 June 2025.

Miss A complained that the GP Practice had removed her from its practice list. She also complained about the information provided to her by the Health Board in response to her complaint. The Ombudsman found that the GP Practice had not provided Miss A with warnings prior to, or an explanation about, her removal from the practice list in line with its policy. In addition, the Health Board provided Miss A and the local Senedd Member with a response to her complaint that contained inaccurate information about her removal from the practice list. The Ombudsman obtained the GP Practice’s agreement to, within 4 weeks, review the action taken and consider whether it has appropriate procedures and guidance in place for considering removing patients from its list. It also agreed to provide Miss A with a specific explanation about why the GP Practice considered it appropriate to remove her from its patient list without warning or explanation. The Health Board agreed to provide Miss A and her local Senedd Member with an apology for the inaccurate information previously provided and an explanation of why this occurred, within 4 weeks.

Mr A had complained about issues relating to the care provided to him by the GP Practice. The Ombudsman found that while the GP Practice had provided Mr A with a complaint response, it had failed to fully respond to the concerns he had raised. That amounted to maladministration which caused him an injustice. The Ombudsman obtained the GP Practice’s agreement to investigate and respond fully to Mr A’s concerns and to apologise to him for not doing so in the first place. The GP Practice agreed to undertake these steps within 2 months.

Mr A complained that a GP Practice in the Powys Teaching Health Board area (“the Practice”) failed to provide appropriate care and treatment in relation to his presenting symptoms. Mr A was later diagnosed with polymyalgia rheumatica. Mr A was particularly concerned that it was unreasonable for the Practice to discontinue steroid use after asking them to be continued and reporting pain in their absence, that the Practice had not conducted the correct blood tests, and that the Practice could have taken steps to diagnose Mr A sooner. The investigation found that the care provided had been of an appropriate standard and that there was no evidence that the Practice could have taken steps to diagnose Mr A sooner without the benefit of hindsight. The complaint was therefore not upheld.

Ms A complained about the care and treatment that her late father, Mr B, received from the Practice, including that it did not adequately treat her father’s anaemia. The Ombudsman decided that although the Practice prescribed one month’s folic acid, no further investigation of Mr B’s folate level were carried out after the month’s prescription ended. On balance, it was likely that the folic acid prescription should have continued. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. She sought and gained the Practice’s agreement, that within 20 working days it would write to Ms A to acknowledge and apologise that the management of her father’s folate deficiency was not appropriate, and to review its treatment of this condition to improve care for future patients.

Ms C complained about care and treatment provided to her late brother, Mr A, by a GP Practice (“the Practice”) in the area of Powys Teaching Health Board. The investigation considered whether the Practice missed opportunities to carry out earlier investigations or referrals that would have allowed Mr A’s haemochromatosis (an inherited condition where iron levels in the body slowly build up over many years which untreated can damage parts of the body such as the liver, joints, pancreas, and heart) to be diagnosed and treated sooner. The investigation found no evidence that there were any missed opportunities by the Practice to detect Mr A’s haemochromatosis at an earlier stage. The Ombudsman did not uphold the complaint.

Mr K complained that despite him raising concerns with the GP Practice, he had not received a full response. The Ombudsman found that although the GP Practice responded to Mr K’s concerns, it had not addressed all of the concerns raised. She said this caused frustration to Mr K. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the GP Practice’s agreement to provide Mr K with an apology for the delay in responding to his concerns and provide him with a full complaint response within 30 working days.

Mrs B complained about the care and treatment provided to her by the Practice. Specifically, she complained that the Practice failed to act on a letter by an Orthopaedic Consultant requesting that Mrs B have bone density investigations and that it had not reviewed her usage of prednisolone (a steroid medication) adequately since August 2017, and had not prescribed bisphosphonates (medication to help with bone density which can reduce in those taking steroids). Finally, she complained that she was not referred to an ENT specialist following a request to do so by an Audiologist. In response to the Ombudsman’s investigation, the Practice provided a copy of a Significant Event Analysis it carried out in response to Mrs B’s complaint. It also provided details of the measures that had been taken to ensure that similar failings did not occur again and agreed to apologise to Mrs B. Having taken this information into account, the Ombudsman proposed a settlement of the complaint. The Ombudsman was satisfied, following consultation with Mrs B, that it was appropriate to settle the complaint on the basis of the agreed actions as it was unlikely that continuing the investigation would achieve anything further. Therefore the investigation was discontinued on that basis.