Rydings Hall Surgery

Staff seemed dismissive when raising serious concerns

The staff here are evidently stretched thin. Many of the team members demonstrate genuine capability, and one senses they could provide excellent care if afforded adequate time and resources. Having worked in healthcare myself, I recognise that delivering your best work becomes impossible when burdened by excessive workload and insufficient time to perform your duties properly. However, it is deeply concerning when the level of care becomes so dismissive that patients are essentially turned away. To display no genuine engagement with patient concerns, particularly when individuals are visibly unwell or clearly distressed, falls well short of acceptable professional standards. Our family experienced a serious medical event that, by chance, did not result in tragedy. Since changing practices, it has become evident that this condition could have been identified much earlier. The previous surgery possessed the necessary information; had they engaged with our concerns rather than disregarding them, the outcome might have been very different. As a taxpayer, I have always believed pursuing legal action against the NHS is wrong, and I maintain that view. Yet I now understand the desperation that drives others to do so. Witnessing a loved one deteriorate to the point of critical danger, only to encounter indifference from the clinician, is profoundly distressing. Those familiar with the practice will recognise the individual in question, and their colleagues should have intervened long ago. I acknowledge that some patients present with unfounded health anxieties, and that diagnostic reasoning typically favours common explanations over rare ones. However, this principle cannot apply universally. This practice risks overlooking serious conditions. I knew someone who was dismissed with an explanation that proved dangerously inadequate. This is what happens when clinicians lack curiosity or fail to listen properly. The consequences can be fatal. Other family members have endured different yet equally troubling experiences at this practice. They have faced repeated emotional strain whilst managing chronic health conditions, alongside associated anxiety and depression. A neurodevelopmental condition required prolonged advocacy before diagnosis, following multiple dismissals. The practice's approach has compounded their difficulties, making healthcare engagement so stressful that they now experience panic before appointments. We have family members with significant hearing and mobility challenges. Yet the only appointment access is by telephone or in-person attendance. Neurodivergent individuals requiring prescriptions that could be dispensed remotely are still required to attend face-to-face, regardless of the distress this causes. When queries go unanswered, travelling to the practice yields no resolution. Being asked to "pop back" dismisses the genuine burden of leaving work and travelling. Those without transport resources face even greater barriers. I recognise the pressures facing general practice and the gatekeeping role required. However, our family are educated and able to advocate for themselves. I am deeply troubled considering how vulnerable patients might fare. The thought that our child could one day depend on such a practice for care is alarming. For entirely different reasons, our family members are fortunate to be alive. This is entirely despite, not because of, this practice. You may consider this an overstatement. It is not. I had sympathised with the difficult circumstances facing clinicians. However, observing how another practice operates has transformed that sympathy into dismay at having tolerated repeated dismissal, compromised dignity, and near-loss of loved ones. This reflects not isolated clinical error, but sustained poor practice choices. If you are dissatisfied with your current practice, you have the right to register elsewhere. The process can be explained to you.