The claim

The claimant was subsequently diagnosed with colorectal carcinoma and made a claim against the GP for failing to refer him urgently, leading to a four week delay in diagnosis. The GP contacted the MDU for advice and support.

The letter of claim alleged that if the patient had been referred under the two week rule, the tumour would have been smaller when diagnosed and the patient would have avoided four weeks of pain, suffering and anxiety.

The claim was therefore of low value, but the MDU nevertheless sought an independent GP expert's opinion, which supported the GP's management.

The records from the subsequent referral also helped, as they revealed a normal haemoglobin level and that the patient had told another clinician that his bowel habit hadn't changed, thus supporting the GP's factual account.

The MDU responded to the letter of claim denying breach of duty and stating that even if the GP had been in breach, which was not accepted, the records didn't reveal any evidence of the patient having suffered pain or anxiety during the alleged delay in diagnosis. Liability was denied and the case against the MDU member was discontinued.

MDU advice

Despite the outcome, this case shows that recording negative findings as well as positive ones in a patient's notes can be helpful in providing an accurate record of events. Clinical records are very often a vital component in allegations of negligence, and completeness can be key.

Alleged delay of diagnosis

Alleged delay of diagnosis