Wibsey & Queensbury Medical Centre
NV
N V. 7 years ago • From Google
Bad
This practice experiences common difficulties found at similar surgeries, such as challenging telephone access where lines are frequently engaged. When contact is eventually made, callers may encounter an abrupt manner with repetitive messaging about availability constraints. After persistent attempts and worsening symptoms, patients may be directed to call at alternative times, though even then appointments are often described as unavailable except for urgent cases, despite apparent availability in the schedule. Following eventual appointment confirmation and arrival on time, extended waiting periods are typical, with reception areas sometimes appearing unstaffed and response times to requests being notably slow. These patterns appear consistent across multiple surgeries in the local area. The primary concern prompting this low rating relates to clinical care quality and the complaints handling process. The practice website indicates complaints should be raised directly with management, however staff typically redirect patients to submit written complaints instead. No response has been received to a complaint submitted in early 2018. This protracted process limits patients' opportunity to escalate concerns to regulatory bodies. A pattern of attributing issues to external factors such as system outages appears evident, though management appears readily available when practice systems are affected. During two separate consultations with one particular clinician, concerning experiences occurred. In the first instance, a family member was assessed and told their presentation was unremarkable for their condition, yet subsequently required emergency hospital care for serious symptoms that were later confirmed as abnormal. The clinician later contacted regarding this outcome, raising questions about appropriate information handling procedures. In a subsequent consultation with the same clinician, a prescribed medication caused significant adverse effects despite documented allergies in medical records. When symptoms developed, the clinician dismissed concerns as normal and encouraged continuation of the same medication. When side effects were mentioned, the clinician displayed alternative options without addressing the underlying issue or reviewing the patient's history. In summary, there appear to be concerns regarding thoroughness in reviewing patient records and medication details before prescribing, alongside dismissal of reported adverse effects. Changing practices locally is difficult, so alternative arrangements are now requested for future appointments.
lisa m.