Informal complaints procedure in general practice

EDITOR, - P C Pietroni and S de Uray-Ura describe an important development in general practice - namely, an informal complaints procedure.1 Their experience shows that a need for a practice based complaints procedure exists and that a viable protocol can be devised. Their use of the procedure for complaints by staff as well as complaints by patients is welcome.

The Medical Defence Union supports the concept of practice based complaints procedures, but such procedures are unlikely to reduce the number of general practitioners who are found in breach of their terms of service for serious complaints such as failure to visit when necessary. They should, however, reduce the number of complaints to the family health services authorities that do not concern terms of service.

The authors do not describe how they dealt with patients’ “grumbles” before their practice complaints procedure was set up. Many such grumbles can be dealt with by unstructured discussion at the time that they are voiced. Not all complaints will fit into the neat categories devised by a protocol. Speed, sympathy, and a willingness to listen may be all that is necessary to resolve a complaint.2 It would be a retrograde step to refer all patients’ complaints to a procedure run by a third person.

In their introduction the authors confuse complaints to family health services authorities with litigation and quote my figures incorrectly.3 It is not complaints to family health services authorities but claims for damages against general practitioners that have increased 10-fold over 12 years. Complaints to family health services authorities have increased threefold in 12 years. Similarly, the differential rates of complaint against male and female general practitioners relate not to claims for damages but to complaints to family health services authorities.