Failings in the way a GP practice handled the removal of patient and his family from the Practice list

What happened

Mr B, along with his wife and child, received letters from the Practice saying they were being taken off the Practice list but it did not clearly explain why it had done this, or which member of the family this related to. The Practice had not warned Mr B about this in the previous twelve months.

Mr B complained, and the Practice said that one cause of this was that he had complained about a GP at the Practice. However, he had complained about the GP after the family had received the removal letter. Another reason it gave related to the Mr B's employment.

When we started to look at the complaint, the Practice later added further, new, reasons for the removals based on events that it had not made any record of.

The removal from the Practice's list caused problems for Mr B and his family: Mr B's wife could have appointments in her native language at the Practice, but can't do this at her new practice, and Mr B has had to take time of work to go to appointments with her, causing a loss of income. Because of this Mr B and his family had experienced stress.

What we found

The Practice did not follow the relevant guidance as it failed to give Mr B and his family a warning before it removed them. Also it did not clearly explain the reasons for doing this, or tell them which members of the family it related to.

It was inaccurate for the Practice to say that the Mr B's complaint caused the removals, as this happened afterwards. Also, removing a patient because they have made a complaint is not in line with the relevant guidelines.

It was inappropriate for the Practice to have removed the complainant based on his employment issues, and removing the whole family was not in line with the relevant guidelines.

There was no evidence of the events the Practice later told us had caused the removals. The Practice's complaint handling was not clear or evidence–based, and was therefore not in line with our Principles.

Both the way the Practice carried out the removals and its poor complaint handling had a considerable impact on Mr B and his family.

Putting it right

The Practice acknowledged and apologised for its failings and the impact these had on Mr B and his family. It paid Mr B £700 for the injustice and poor complaint handling that he and his family experienced.

The Practice also agreed to review its policy for new patient registrations and the removal of patients, and to make sure these are in line with the relevant guidelines and its contractual requirements.