Background
This case concerns a patient who underwent a surgical procedure and later raised a complaint about the behaviour and communication of the doctor involved. The patient felt that the clinical rationale for the procedure had not been properly explained and that key information about what to expect was missing. Additional concerns arose regarding the doctor’s conduct during and after the surgery, as well as the way the complaint was handled at Stage 1.
The patient documented their concerns thoroughly, keeping accurate dates, times and evidence, and submitted a detailed written complaint. Despite feeling dissatisfied with early responses, the patient remained engaged and continued to seek clarification. Ultimately, all three heads of complaint were upheld. The adjudicator concluded that there were clear shortcomings in the explanations provided to the patient, in the quality of clinical records, and in the management of the complaint itself. A goodwill payment of £1,500 was awarded.
Learning for the Care Provider
The adjudication identified several areas for improvement:
- Provision of Information: Patients should always receive a clear Patient Information Leaflet explaining proposed procedures, their purpose and what to expect.
- Quality of Explanations: Consultants should be reminded of the importance of fully explaining examinations, treatments and clinical decisions.
- Timeliness of Documentation: Clinic letters should be dictated and typed within a reasonable timeframe.
- Respecting Communication Preferences: Patients’ preferred methods of communication should be confirmed at the outset of the complaints process and adhered to.
- Transparency in Meetings: The purpose of any meeting or call should be clearly explained; simply inviting a complainant to attend is insufficient.
- Accurate Record-Keeping: Staff must record all communication with complainants and follow up with written summaries for agreement.
- Written Input from Staff: Written statements should be obtained from all relevant staff, including consultants with practising privileges.
- Engagement in the Process: Consultants must actively engage with the complaints process.
- Independent Advice: Where third-party advice is sought, this should be provided in writing, declare any conflicts of interest and follow good practice guidelines.
- Clarity on Access to Information: Patients should be informed about how long documents sent via secure platforms will remain available, and consideration should be given to extending access beyond 90 days.
Learning for Patients
The case also demonstrates effective approaches for patients raising concerns:
- Documenting details (times, dates, conversations, symptoms and outcomes) helps ensure clarity.
- Providing evidence strengthens the credibility of concerns.
- Submitting a detailed complaint enables reviewers to consider all relevant factors.
- Persisting respectfully when early responses feel inadequate can be important.
- Engaging constructively with the process increases the likelihood of a clear outcome.
Conclusion
This case highlights the vital role of clear communication, thorough documentation and transparent processes in maintaining trust between patients and healthcare providers. The outcomes and learning points not only address the shortcomings experienced by this patient but also offer valuable guidance for improving future patient care and complaint handling.