CLOSE SEARCH
If you repeatedly visited your GP with symptoms that were not properly investigated, were not referred when you should have been, or later discovered that an important diagnosis had been missed, you may be wondering whether your GP should reasonably have done more.
Our specialist Medical Negligence team can investigate the treatment you received, obtain your GP and hospital records and instruct an independent GP or other appropriate medical specialist to assess whether reasonable steps should have been taken earlier and whether that would have changed the outcome.
Many of our specialists are based in London and the South East, but we act for clients elsewhere in England and Wales. Most eligible claims can be handled under a no win, no fee agreement.
A GP is not expected to have the same specialist knowledge as a consultant in every area of medicine. Their role is different.
The relevant question is generally whether the care provided was of the standard reasonably expected from a competent GP in the same circumstances and with the information reasonably available at the time.
In practical terms, that can mean recognising when symptoms can reasonably be managed in primary care and when they require further investigation, monitoring, urgent treatment or specialist referral.
This distinction is particularly important in delayed diagnosis claims. A GP may not have been expected to diagnose the eventual condition at the first appointment. The issue may instead be whether they should have:
recognised relevant warning signs;
considered an important alternative diagnosis;
carried out an appropriate examination;
arranged reasonable tests;
checked or acted on test results;
provided appropriate safety-netting;
reviewed the diagnosis when symptoms persisted or changed; or
referred the patient for specialist assessment.
The standard is judged largely on what was known or should reasonably have been appreciated at the time, rather than simply looking backwards after a serious diagnosis has eventually been made.
This is why independent GP evidence is usually important. An expert can assess what a reasonably competent GP should have done at each stage and whether the treatment actually provided fell below that standard.
Potential claims can involve:
Failure to refer – symptoms should reasonably have resulted in specialist or hospital assessment.
Delayed cancer referral – warning signs are missed or an appropriate urgent referral is not made.
Failure to recognise serious infection – including sepsis, meningitis or other conditions requiring urgent treatment.
Heart attack and cardiovascular conditions – symptoms or risk factors are not appropriately investigated or referred.
Stroke – neurological symptoms are missed or not treated as requiring urgent hospital assessment.
Blood clots – symptoms of DVT, pulmonary embolism or other clotting conditions are not recognised.
Failure to act on test results – abnormal blood tests or other findings are overlooked or inadequately followed up.
Medication and prescribing errors – inappropriate drugs, incorrect dosage, harmful interactions or inadequate monitoring.
Failure to investigate persistent symptoms – repeated consultations do not lead to reconsideration of the original diagnosis or further investigation.
Failure to recognise deterioration – a worsening condition is not escalated to urgent hospital treatment.
A missed or delayed diagnosis does not automatically establish negligence. GPs frequently have to make decisions where common symptoms could have several possible explanations.
The question is whether a reasonably competent GP should have investigated, referred, treated or followed up differently in the circumstances at that time.
GPs perform an important gatekeeping role. They do not need to refer every patient with potentially concerning symptoms, but they need to recognise when further investigation or specialist assessment is reasonably required.
A delayed referral can be particularly serious where earlier treatment could have prevented deterioration.
Claims can involve delayed referral for suspected cancer, neurological disease, heart disease, serious infection, gastrointestinal conditions, orthopaedic problems, gynaecological conditions or vascular disease.
An important issue can be not only whether a referral should have been made, but how urgently it should have been made.
Sometimes the appropriate test is ordered but the result is not dealt with properly. Problems can include abnormal results not being reviewed, results being filed without appropriate action, the patient not being told about an abnormal finding, no repeat test being arranged, a recommended referral not being made or inadequate follow-up systems.
The records can help establish when the result became available, who reviewed it and what should reasonably have happened next.
GPs prescribe and monitor a very wide range of medication. Claims can potentially arise from, prescribing an inappropriate drug, incorrect dosage, failure to consider allergies, contraindicated medication, harmful drug interactions, failure to arrange required monitoring, failure to act on abnormal monitoring results or continuing medication despite significant adverse effects.
Whether there is a viable claim will depend on both the prescribing error and the injury it actually caused.
If you believe you’ve suffered due to GP negligence, don’t hesitate to get in touch. We offer a no-obligation consultation to discuss your case and provide clear advice on your options.
Telephone -
9am to 5pm
Call the Taylor Rose team or fill out the form below and we will get back to you as soon as possible.
Telephone opening hours -
9am to 5pm
