23


A pain in the buttock M


r B, a 46-year-old taxi driver, rang the out-of-hours service


complaining of pain in the rectum and constipation. He mentioned that he had had infected piles before and he was prescribed antibiotics for it. The out-of-hours GP, Dr K, was satisfied by the explanation of symptoms over the phone and wrote a prescription for laxatives and antibiotics to be collected by Mr B from a local pharmacy. He advised Mr B to see his GP after the weekend if the symptoms persisted. Two days later Mr B visited


his GP, Dr L, complaining of worsening pain and feeling unwell. He reported profuse sweating and rigors. Mr B had passed a small amount of motion, but was still experiencing rectal pain. Dr L checked Mr B’s temperature and examined the abdomen, chest and ENT, which were all unremarkable. She chose not to undertake a PR as she presumed the out-of- hours service had done so. Dr L diagnosed resolving constipation and coincidental


viral infection. She advised Mr B to continue the antibiotics. She thought that the sweating might be a side effect of the Prozac Mr B was also taking and changed his prescription. Dr L saw Mr B again the


following day, this time as a home visit. She did not perform a rectal examination and advised him to continue treatment. As Dr L visited Mr B after evening surgery, she omitted to make an entry in the patient’s notes. The following evening, Mr


B called the out-of-hours service again. A different GP, Dr A, made a home visit and quickly diagnosed a rectal abscess. Admission to hospital was organised and aggressive surgical treatment was required. Mr B subsequently


launched a claim against Dr K and Dr L.


EXPERT OPINION The defence of the case was complicated by poor notekeeping. The notes of Dr L’s home visit to Mr B, for example, had been written


up several days later, after Dr L heard what had happened to Mr B. Notes wherever possible should be contemporaneous; Dr L should have made an entry as soon as possible after seeing Mr B and, if there was a delay, indicated the reasons why it was added later. A GP expert was critical


LEARNING POINTS


■ Be aware of the risks of telephone consultations and prescribing. Are you putting yourself in a position to make a sound clinical judgment before offering advice? If you are unable to do this, you should arrange for the patient to be seen. See Your Practice (Autumn 2009) “Do’s and don’ts of telephone conversations” – (www.medicalprotection.org/uk/ publications/your-practice-autumn-2009/dos- and-donts-of-telephone-conversations)


■ The interface between out-of-hours care and routine GP care requires careful management to ensure safe handover.


■ Always review documentation and, if unclear, clarify with the patient.


■ Good documentation is essential to safeguard your practice.


■ Giving antibiotics without clinical indications and examination is likely to be indefensible.


of Dr K for not arranging for Mr B to be seen, and of Dr L for her failure to examine Mr B properly. It was advised that a referral for Mr B should have occurred earlier, when treatment would have been less radical. The claim was settled for a substantial sum. ZS


CASE REPORTS


GENERAL PRACTICE NOTEKEEPING


UNITED KINGDOM CASEBOOK | VOLUME 19 | ISSUE 1 | JANUARY 2011 www.mps.org.uk


stefanolunardi/shutterstock


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28