• Case ref:
    201102937
  • Date:
    March 2012
  • Body:
    A Medical Practice, Fife NHS Board
  • Sector(s):
    Health
  • Subject:
    practice lists
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary
Mrs C complained on behalf of her family about their removal from a GP list. The family, a mother suffering from terminal cancer and two adult daughters, temporarily moved house and left the area after having been registered at the practice for a number of years. When the family returned to the town, but not to their former home, they applied to re-register at the practice.

Their application was refused because of a deteriorating relationship between Mrs C's daughters and the practice, which had been on-going for three to four years. Mrs C claimed that the family had been removed from the list without explanation and that when reasons were given they were inaccurate and inappropriate. She also complained that correspondence about the matter was not responded to.

Our investigation found that the family had been removed from the list when they removed themselves - albeit temporarily - from the geographical area covered by the practice. At this time, a collective decision was taken by the practice that should the family return to the area they would not be re-registered due to the breakdown of the relationship between the practice and Mrs C's daughters.

The family did move back into the area but not to their former home and there were other practices closer to their current address. Therefore, it was thought beneficial for the family to register with a GP closer to their home address due to Mrs C's cancer treatment. When Mrs C's daughters appealed to the practice for their mother alone to be re-registered this was refused, as it was not thought practicable.

Our investigation found that reasonable explanations had been provided to the family as to why they could not be re-registered and that the original removal for geographical reasons had been appropriate. It also found that correspondence on the matter had been responded to by the practice in a timely and reasonable manner. We, therefore, did not uphold the complaints.