Report Date


Case Against



Clinical treatment outside hospital; GP

Case Reference Number



Upheld in whole or in part

Ms A complained about the management and care she received in relation to her kidney disease from her GP (“the GP”). She also complained that the metformin she was prescribed for her Type 2 diabetes was not stopped sooner and was dissatisfied with the management and care of her ileo-anal pouch (where the large bowel and rectum is removed and a new rectum created using part of the small bowel) by the GP and the GP Practice.
The Ombudsman found that had blood test monitoring by the GP been more effective this might have prompted an earlier GP renal referral, and therefore the opportunity to do so was lost. It also meant an opportunity for possible renal review of Ms A’s blood pressure was missed. That said, the Ombudsman concluded that given Ms A’s pre-existing health issues, even if she had had a renal review sooner, it was not possible to say whether this would have changed Ms A’s outcome in terms of her kidney disease progression. Moreover, any impact might have been limited. The injustice for Ms A was that she would have to live with the uncertainty of not knowing whether her outcome might have been different. To this extent only, the Ombudsman upheld this part of Ms A’s complaint and recommended that the GP Practice apologise again for the failings identified in the report.
The Ombudsman did not uphold Ms A’s complaints relating to the prescribing of metformin or her ileo-anal management and care.