Free GMC Complaint Template

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to raise a concern about the fitness to practise of the doctor identified below with the General Medical Council (the GMC). I am a family member of the patient, and this concern relates to the care of Arthur James Carrick (deceased). I ask the GMC to assess this concern against Good Medical Practice 2024 and the grounds of impairment in section 35C(2) of the Medical Act 1983.

This report concerns the doctor identified below, who is registered with the GMC.

My concern about the doctor's fitness to practise is as follows:

My father, Arthur Carrick (aged 81), saw Dr Brandt on 28 October and again on 4 November 2025 with worsening breathlessness, a productive cough and confusion. On both occasions Dr Brandt recorded "viral, reassurance given" without examining his chest or checking his oxygen saturations, and declined my request for a home visit. My father was admitted to hospital by ambulance on 6 November with severe pneumonia and sepsis and died on 9 November. When I later obtained the GP records under a subject access request, the 4 November entry had been amended after the event to add "chest clear on auscultation, sats 97%" — an examination that did not take place and that my father (who was with me throughout) never had. My concern is both the failure to assess and escalate, and the apparent alteration of the records after my father's death.

I enclose or can provide the following in support of this concern:

Enclosure 1: the GP record print-out obtained by subject access request, including the metadata showing the 4 November entry was amended on 12 November 2025. Enclosure 2: the ambulance and hospital admission records of 6 November. Enclosure 3: the death certificate. Enclosure 4: my contemporaneous note of both appointments. Enclosure 5: a letter from the hospital consultant noting the delayed presentation.

Domain 4 — Trust and professionalism. Good Medical Practice 2024 requires a doctor to be honest and trustworthy, to act with integrity, to maintain professional boundaries, and to keep to the law. A concern in this domain is, for example, dishonesty (including altering or falsifying records), a criminal conviction or caution, an abuse of the doctor-patient relationship, or conduct that undermines public trust in the profession.

How this applies to my concern:
The amendment of the 4 November record after my father's death to record an examination that never happened is, on its face, a dishonest alteration of a clinical record. That engages Domain 4 directly — honesty, integrity and trustworthiness. The separate failure to examine and escalate also engages Domain 1 (knowledge, skills and development), but the record alteration is the most serious element because it goes to the doctor's integrity and to the reliability of the medical record.

Under section 35C(2) of the Medical Act 1983, a doctor's fitness to practise may be found impaired by reference to one or more statutory grounds. The ground I rely on is misconduct. A departure from the standards of Good Medical Practice 2024 will support a finding of impairment where it is serious enough.

A concern reported to the GMC passes through five stages: (1) triage — whether the concern raises a question about the doctor's fitness to practise; (2) a provisional enquiry or full investigation (Rule 4 and Rule 7 letters); (3) a decision by two case examiners (one medical, one lay) who may close the case, issue a warning, agree undertakings, or refer to a tribunal; (4) a hearing before the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS); and (5) a sanction if fitness to practise is found impaired — undertakings, conditions, suspension or erasure. The threshold throughout is whether the doctor's fitness to practise is impaired. The GMC does not usually pursue a single clinical incident unless it suggests a serious or persistent failure, or an ongoing risk to patients.

Why this concern crosses the threshold:
This is not an isolated clinical slip. There were two consultations with red-flag symptoms in an 81-year-old, a refusal to examine or visit, a death within days, and then an alteration of the record after the event. Taken together this raises a serious question about both competence and integrity, and an ongoing risk to patients if the doctor amends records to conceal omissions. In my submission it plainly crosses the threshold for investigation and is capable of supporting a finding of impaired fitness to practise.

Local resolution to date:
I raised a written complaint with the practice manager on 18 November 2025. The practice's response of 9 December 2025 did not address the record amendment and asserted the entries were contemporaneous, which the metadata contradicts. I have also begun an NHS complaint and will take it to the Ombudsman if it is not resolved.

On this concern, I ask the GMC to refer the doctor to the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service.

The standard of care is that of a reasonably competent practitioner in the relevant field: a doctor is not at fault if acting in accordance with a responsible body of medical opinion (Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582), but that opinion must withstand logical analysis (Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1998] AC 232). Fitness-to-practise proceedings are not the same as a negligence claim: the tribunal's role is forward-looking and protective of patients, public confidence and professional standards, and there is no automatic presumption of erasure even following a serious conviction — Bawa-Garba v General Medical Council [2018] EWCA Civ 1879. Where a failing is the product of systemic pressures rather than individual culpability, that is relevant to both impairment and sanction.

The standard and how it was departed from:
No responsible body of general practitioners would, in my submission, record "viral, reassurance given" for an 81-year-old with worsening breathlessness, productive cough and new confusion across two consultations without examining the chest, checking oxygen saturations or considering admission. The "watch and wait" approach taken here is not supported by any logical clinical analysis (Bolitho), particularly given the red-flag combination of symptoms in an elderly patient.

I say this is principally an individual failing by the doctor.

Clinical / expert opinion relied on:
I am obtaining an opinion from a consultant in acute medicine on the standard of care and on whether earlier assessment and admission would, on the balance of probabilities, have changed the outcome. I will provide that opinion to the GMC when it is finalised.

The GMC investigates an individual doctor's fitness to practise; it does not resolve complaints about NHS service or organisational failures and it cannot award compensation. Complaints about NHS care are first raised through the provider's local complaints procedure and, if unresolved, can be taken to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO), which runs in parallel to any GMC referral. A concern about a dentist goes to the General Dental Council and a concern about a nurse or midwife to the Nursing and Midwifery Council.

I am also pursuing an NHS complaint and, if it is not resolved, a complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, in parallel with this report.

NHS complaint position:
An NHS complaint about the practice's organisational handling (the refused home visit, the complaint response) is being pursued separately and will go to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman if not resolved. That complaint is about service and organisational failure; this GMC report is about Dr Brandt's individual fitness to practise.

Which body for which part:
GMC: Dr Brandt's individual conduct — the failure to assess and escalate, and the alteration of the record. PHSO: the practice's organisational handling, the refused home visit policy, and the complaint response. The two are complementary, not alternatives.

I ask the GMC to: (a) acknowledge this concern; (b) assess it against Good Medical Practice 2024 and the grounds in section 35C(2) of the Medical Act 1983; (c) investigate where the concern raises a question about the doctor's fitness to practise; (d) keep me informed of the outcome so far as the GMC's rules allow; and (e) tell me if any part of this concern should instead be directed to the provider's local complaints procedure, the PHSO, or another regulator.

The best way to contact me is at the address or email address at the head of this letter. I understand that the GMC will process the personal and health data in this concern under the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 for its regulatory functions, that special-category health data may be involved, and that the GMC may need to share relevant parts of this concern with the doctor in order to investigate it.

YOURS FAITHFULLY,