Legal issues
Reflections on the Helen Eisenhauer case
A recent case in which a GP was suspended for faking appointments to fit in the school pick up has sparked controversy, with public opinion opposing the tribunal’s decision. Barrister, Alecsandra Manning-Rees, looks at what healthcare can learn from the case of Helen Eisenhauer, the wider legal implications, what it means for public trust, and whether the tribunal decision was proportional given the social context.
Dr. Eisenhauer, a GP and mother of two, booked false face-to-face appointments so that she could leave work in time to collect her children from childcare. She later made a false entry in a patient record to reflect that she had been in work. The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) tribunal treated the conduct as serious dishonesty and imposed a five-month suspension.1
Yet public reaction was widely
more sympathetic, particularly among working parents, many of whom saw the case not simply as one of deception but as an illustration of the impossible pressures produced by modern working life. The decision remains the focal point for debates about sanction and public opinion. To what extent then, if any, should tribunals decisions reflect public opinion?
Facts of the case On the 17 July 2024, Dr. Eisenhauer, while working an additional locum session at her usual place of work, booked a face-to-face appointment with Patient A in her diary for 4:30pm that day. That appointment was not necessary because Patient A had had a telephone appointment with Dr. Eisenhauer earlier that day which did not necessitate follow up. Later that day, Dr. Eisenhauer changed the appointment at 4:30pm so that it was now for Patient B. Similarly, Patient B did not require a face-to-face appointment as they had also had a telephone appointment with Dr. Eisenhauer earlier that day. Two days later, on the 19 July, Dr. Eisenhauer then accessed Patient B’s medical records and made entries which stated that Dr. Eisenhauer had seen Patient B at the face-to-face appointment and carried out an examination. That entry was false. In evidence, Dr. Eisenhauer explained that
she was, at the time, facing a mixture of circumstances such as sleep deprivation and concerns about her childcare and the end of her working day, namely that she was due to finish work at 4:45pm to collect her children and was
concerned that the 4:30pm appointment may overrun, impacting this. She told the tribunal that she made the entry on the 19 July following another GP noting that there were no notes in the appointment. She stated she did this in the middle of her working day and ‘did not consider the impact which writing in the notes for a consultation which had not occurred’.1
She recalled feeling worried and
embarrassed about what her colleague would think of her for having booked the appointment in and then not seen the patient. Of importance, Dr. Eisenhauer confirmed she worked in a supportive practice and that she had chosen to undertake this additional locum session work. The tribunal found that Dr. Eisenhauer had
breached a number of aspects of Good Medical Practice (2024)2
notably:
l You must make sure that formal records of your work (including patients’ records) are clear, accurate, contemporaneous and legible.
l You must make sure that your conduct justifies patients’ trust in you and the public’s trust in your profession.
l You must make sure any information you communicate as a medical professional is accurate, not false or misleading. […]’
They concluded the behaviour amounted to a serious departure from the required professional standards and that Dr. Eisenhauer’s behaviour fell at the high end of the spectrum of seriousness because it was a course of conduct as Dr. Eisenhauer was intentionally dishonest on two occasions. As such they found that Dr. Eisenhauer had ‘…displayed a reckless disregard both for patient safety and professional standards’. Furthermore ‘by making a false record, she was also undermining a system designed to protect the public ’.1 The tribunal considered the evidence
regarding Dr. Eisenhauer’s personal circumstances around her sleep deprivation and
October 2026 I
www.clinicalservicesjournal.com 59
Khorzhevska -
stock.adobe.com
t
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 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68
