Clinical treatment outside hospital; GP: A GP Practice in the area of Aneurin Bevan University Health Board

Ms A complained about the care provided to her brother, Mr B, shortly before he sadly died. Ms A complained that the Practice inappropriately failed to refer her late brother to a cardiologist and/or for an angiogram. Ms A was aggrieved that no family history/lifestyle choices had been recorded in her brother’s notes. Ms A was concerned that when her brother returned a personal device used to detect abnormal heart rhythms to the Practice, no follow-up was arranged.

The investigation found that the care provided by the Practice had been, broadly, appropriate. The investigation identified an element of inadequate care, whereby the GP should have checked Mr B’s blood pressure, but it was unlikely that the findings of such an assessment would have led to Mr B being referred to cardiology.

With respect to the concern about record-keeping, the GP acknowledged that the family history had not been recorded and that this was a learning point. The investigation could not conclude, however, that the maladministration identified had caused a significant hardship or injustice to Mr B.

Finally, with regard to the use of the heart rhythm monitoring device, the investigation found that its use by the Practice had been reasonable and that it had also been reasonable for the Practice not to proactively follow-up Mr B without further data and without a request for further care.

The complaint was therefore not upheld.