Report Date


Case Against

A GP Practice in the area of Cardiff & Vale University Health Board


Clinical treatment outside hospital; GP

Case Reference Number



Not Upheld

Mr A complained about the care and management his wife, Mrs A, received from a GP Practice (“the Surgery”) in the area of Cardiff & Vale University Health Board following her initial contact with the Surgery about pain and swelling on her lower legs. He also complained about the delayed diagnosis of tendonitis and her subsequent treatment. Mr A was concerned that the GPs used telephone consultations, as opposed to a face-to-face consultation, to diagnose his wife’s leg condition.

The Ombudsman found that the GPs telephone and face-to-face consultations were reasonable. Mrs A’s clinical picture was complex, and her presenting symptoms, which evolved, were not typical of tendonitis. She found that whilst the delay in diagnosis was unfortunate, the Ombudsman was satisfied that the Surgery’s management and care of Mrs A’s leg related complaint was appropriate at the time.

The Ombudsman was satisfied that it was reasonable for Mrs A’s first consultation to have been held remotely and that a face-to-face appointment would not have led to a different outcome and that that these events took place during the COVID-19 pandemic when national guidance promoted remote consultations except in the most urgent of cases. She was also satisfied that subsequent face to face consultations sought to treat Mrs A appropriately. The Ombudsman did not uphold Mr A’s complaint.