The Jenner Practice
LL
Luis L. one year ago • From Google
Bad
Since this practice became part of Modality Lewisham, I have noticed a decline in the standard and transparency of care provided, particularly regarding mental health support. I disclosed significant thoughts of self-harm to the mental health practitioner, describing specific methods and intent. I refrained from acting on these thoughts because I felt there were people who cared about me and needed me to remain alive. However, none of this disclosure was documented in my medical records. The written report instead stated that I was "coping well," which did not accurately represent what I had communicated. I have experienced ongoing mental health difficulties since 2015 and made clear that my current medication was intensifying my thoughts of self-harm—a recognised risk factor for certain presentations, particularly where certain antidepressants may trigger mood elevation in individuals with specific diagnoses. I was offered either an increased dose of the same medication or an alternative from the same drug class, without any structured intervention plan, appropriate safeguarding measures, or referral to specialist services as a protective step. When I formally objected to the discrepancy between what I said and what appeared in my report, my complaint was closed without any remedial action. The same staff members remain in post, and there appears to be no accountability mechanism in place. I am concerned that a pattern may exist whereby serious mental health concerns are minimised, potentially preventing patients from accessing appropriate specialist referrals. This raises significant questions about patient safety, standards of care, and the accuracy of medical record-keeping. While I recognise that GP practices operate under resource constraints, the way this practice has managed mental health concerns—particularly those involving self-harm—is troubling. This impact is compounded for vulnerable patients, including those with additional health conditions or limited social support. I am also concerned that patients with limited knowledge of their rights, insufficient resources, or who are too unwell to advocate for themselves may be treated as less likely to challenge inadequate care. My experience suggests the clinical approach was superficial and did not reflect the gravity of what I disclosed. I believe external regulatory review of this practice is warranted. However, I remain pessimistic about meaningful change. Other reviews suggest similar concerns have been raised previously without visible improvement, which raises questions about the practice's underlying culture and governance.
S B.