By Ken Thomas, medical negligence specialist at Harding Evans Solicitors

The recent Shipman Inquiry report has again called into question the system for regulating GPs. Published last week, the Inquiry found, amongst other things, that the system of complaint handling in respect of GP care remains grossly inadequate. This to an extent explained how Harold Shipman was able to get away with what he did for so very long, and with such tragic consequences.

The Inquiry was especially critical of the GMC, the regulatory body for the medical profession. Speaking last week, Dame Janet Smith who headed up the Inquiry suggested that there was still a culture of unwillingness on the part of doctors to report colleagues who might not be behaving or treating appropriately. She suggested that there should be no room for such protection of colleagues where the safety and welfare of patients was at stake. In all her report made more than 100 recommendations for change. In response, the GMC says it has recently introduced new procedures which it has described as the biggest reforms of medical regulation in 150 years.

Of course, we must be careful to distinguish between such dreadful, but thankfully rare, instances arising from rogue GPs like Shipman and complaints arising from genuine mistakes that probably every busy GP across the country will make occasionally. However, from the patient perspective, the issue must be that either way, the public needs protecting.

Moreover, where that complaint is lodged, it must be properly dealt with. The Inquiry heard evidence from Action against Medical Accidents, a charity that campaigns on behalf of patients. AvMA expressed its concerns that there was no system in place whereby authorities were guaranteed knowledge of complaints made to GP practices. The Inquiry took this point up recommending that authorities should have a role in all GP complaints.

I often advise patients or their families upon potential claims which arise from GP errors, whether or not a complaint has been lodged in the first place. In my experience, some surgeries have not acquitted themselves well in terms of complaint handling. That in itself is a missed opportunity to restore any faith the patient/family may have lost in the medical management on offer. Unfortunately, some GPs do tend to behave like an ostrich – they stick their heads in the sand in the hope the matter will go away if they ignore the correspondence.

Claims against GPs can arise in a whole variety of instances. For instance, there may have been a failure to make a diagnosis. Alternatively, the GP may have been at fault in failing to make a referral early enough.

Here in Wales, in September 2003 the number of GPs stood at just under 1,800. It is reported that real difficulties are being faced within valleys communities, especially in recruiting replacements for aging and retiring practitioners. More than 20% of GPs in the Blaenau Gwent region, for instance, are aged 55 and over.

GPs in general do of course find themselves under enormous work pressures. Last week, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence suggested that doctors were all too quick to prescribe anti-depressant medication for individuals who did not necessarily need it. Part of the reason for this may be that GPs simply do not have enough time to spend with such patients to make a comprehensive diagnosis and consider any alternatives.

The fact is that, like all professionals, GPs face increasing challenges and are in certain instances having to be more accountable for any failings. The question is whether their profession can adapt to those changes more swiftly and convincingly that it has in the past.