Elm Hayes Surgery

Reception staff concealed restrictions on future care

My experience with Elm Hayes Surgery has raised serious concerns about how the practice manages patient care and handles complaints. I want to share this so others can be cautious and ideally avoid similar issues. During a consultation, I clearly explained my medical history, but felt the assessment did not adequately account for this context. No referral was offered, no written contact details were provided despite the practice's stated procedures, and no follow-up took place. I believe important clinical indicators were overlooked. This resulted in a delay in accessing appropriate care and caused unnecessary distress. I was given the impression the issue was minor when it turned out to be a recurrence of something more significant. The practice appears to lack sufficient familiarity with conditions like mine and may not be best placed to manage such cases. Other healthcare professionals I subsequently consulted expressed concern about the approach taken and suggested a fundamental misunderstanding of the condition. When I submitted a formal complaint, the process felt slow, dismissive, and lacked transparency. A senior review I requested was only completed after repeated follow-ups, and when it arrived, it largely restated the original position without addressing the points I had raised. It appeared rushed and showed limited meaningful engagement. Most concerning was the response to my subject access request. The surgery confirmed it holds no documentation about how my complaint was assessed or triaged. There were no internal notes, no formal review, no correspondence, and no record of escalation. According to their own account, the complaint was discussed in "a passing conversation," which suggests a lack of proper process and respect for my concerns. The response also revealed that a restriction had been placed on my future care without my knowledge—a system note that effectively prevented me from seeing the clinician involved. This appeared to be because she preferred not to see me again after I questioned her judgement, and reception staff were apparently instructed not to inform me of this. This suggests the complaint was never properly investigated or treated seriously. The practice seemed more focused on self-protection than accountability, raising questions about governance and responsiveness. Their handling of the subject access request was evasive, with deadlines repeatedly missed. Although my condition is now being managed elsewhere, this experience has left me with no confidence in the practice. I believe the clinician involved showed poor judgement and care, resulting in a treatment delay that has affected my wellbeing. While the practice has mentioned some process improvements, these were not directly related to my situation. No genuine apology has been offered, and their response felt defensive rather than constructive. I would urge others to be cautious when dealing with this practice, particularly if you have a complex or recurring health issue. Patients deserve to be heard, supported, and taken seriously—not left to manage their own care or chase complaints. My experience suggests the practice operates with a sense of entitlement that distances it from patient concerns. Elm Hayes appears unwilling or unable to learn from feedback or demonstrate empathy. Their priority seems to be self-protection. If you raise concerns, the response appears defensive and retaliatory. My advice would be to consider alternative practices, even if it requires travelling further. The existing reviews speak for themselves. Look for a practice genuinely committed to patient care.