If you choose to customise the site it will help you to find the most relevant content for your needs. You will still be able to access all content on the site.
Don't have an account?
Click here to register
Login to comment
A GP had recently joined a practice. One of her first appointments was seeing a 14-year old boy who presented with oedema. He had recently suffered nephrotic syndrome and, following discharge, had been well for several weeks until the oedema returned. The GP found that, although his blood pressure was satisfactory, a urine dipstick test showed the presence of protein. There were letters from the consultant paediatrician in the notes indicating that the boy had been followed up for some time in the paediatric clinic and then discharged with a recommendation that he should have his blood pressure and urine tested every fortnight at the GP practice. That had not happened.
The GP made an urgent referral back to the consultant paediatrician. The GP was concerned that the recommended testing had not happened at the practice and she mentioned her concerns to a senior colleague. After some weeks nothing had happened, so she contacted us for advice.
The GP has a duty to act if she believes patients are at risk because of inadequate policies or systems. Rather than simply telling her colleague what has happened, she should use the established practice procedures for reporting adverse incidents and near misses, in line with the GMC's guidance in Raising and acting on concerns about patient safety (2012) and the obligation set out in Good Medical Practice (2013) to "contribute to adverse event recognition" (paragraph 23b). She should also keep a record of her concerns, relevant conversations, correspondence and the action she has taken for future reference.
In the circumstances, the practice will probably hold a significant event audit to investigate why the patient had not been regularly tested in accordance with the recommendations by the consultant paediatrician.
The GP spoke to the practice manager who asked her to complete a significant event incident form. The case was discussed at the next practice significant event audit meeting where it was decided that the system for reviewing hospital letters needed to be improved. Following the practice's established significant event procedures, the incident was logged with the National Reporting and Learning Service.
This page was correct at publication on . Any guidance is intended as general guidance for members only. If you are a member and need specific advice relating to your own circumstances, please contact one of our advisers.
Be the first to comment