GP suspended after blocking out appointments to collect children
A GP has been suspended for five months after admitting she falsely booked appointments to allow time to collect her children – a punishment some GP leaders have described as ‘excessive’.
Salaried GP Dr Helen Eisenhauer, who has worked at Stenhouse Medical Centre in Nottingham since 2018, booked afternoon face-to-face appointments with two patients even though she had undertaken telephone consultations with both earlier that day.
Upon being challenged on this by a GP partner, she made a retrospective entry in one of the patient’s medical records falsely stating she had carried out an examination.
Her fitness was found to be impaired in a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) hearing that concluded last month.
Dr Eisenhauer explained to the tribunal that on 17 July 2024 she had been scheduled to finish at 4.45pm and she needed to leave the surgery to collect her children by 6pm. She booked face-to-face appointments first with one patient, then another, at 4.30pm.
On 19 July, after a partner had noticed ‘anomalies’ in booking arrangements, she made the entry in the second patient’s record.
In her witness statement, Dr Eisenhauer explained: ‘At this time, I decided to write in the notes and inform my colleague that I had done so. I did this in the middle of my full working day without thinking it through. On this day I was working as the duty doctor on a busy Friday.
‘I did not consider the impact which writing in the notes would have for a consultation which had not occurred. I did not consider the consequences of writing this entry at the time. I recollect only my worry and embarrassment.’
The tribunal noted that she did not accept she acted dishonestly when provided the opportunity at two internal meetings held in August 2024.
She also did not admit knowingly entering false information in her self-referral to the GMC in September 2024. However, by the time of the tribunal, she had fully admitted to this.
Doctors’ Association UK (DAUK) GP spokesperson Dr Steve Taylor told Pulse the punishment was ‘excessive’ and could have been managed internally.
He said: ‘This appears to be an excessive punishment from the GMC for what appears to be something that could have been managed by the GP practice.
‘A GP under pressure to collect their children should have the flexibility to manage their day. The lack of flexibility here, led to a serious lapse in judgement in her case. She shouldn’t have done what she did, and this needed to be addressed.
‘However, five months of GP appointments have now been lost to the NHS, she will lose in excess of £30,000 in pay and her face is now all over the media, all to make sure her children were collected on time. No patients were harmed, in fact both consulted and treated appropriately, as there is no clinical error here. She has continued to work since the incident in July 2024 with no apparent concerns.’
Meanwhile, DAUK co-chair Dr Matt Kneale argued Dr Eisenhauer’s behaviour was a product of the GMC’s ‘adversarial’ disciplinary model that ‘actively incentivises the “lack of candour” it claims to abhor’.
He said: ‘When (Dr Eisenhauer) was first questioned, she lied. Why? Because in a culture of blame, admitting “I blocked a slot because I’m overwhelmed” feels a bit like a professional death sentence. The system scares doctors into silence then punishes them for not speaking up.’
‘Until the system changes, we are left with a regulatory architecture that functions as judge and executioner. It effectively tells the NHS’s exhausted workforce: if you are drowning, do not grab at a rope that breaks the rules. It is safer to go under than to reach for a lifeline and face the tribunal.’
Stenhouse Medical Centre said in a statement that it ‘undertook a comprehensive internal investigation’ after the incident ‘following which appropriate action was taken’, and that partners ‘maintained full confidence in (Dr Eisenhauer’s) clinical capabilities’.
The MPTS did not impose an immediate order, which means Dr Eisenhauer has 28 days from the date of the decision to lodge an appeal – a deadline of 6 January. If she decides to appeal, she will be free to continue practising while the appeal is heard.
A GMC spokesperson told Pulse: ‘We recognise and empathise with the pressures doctors face in balancing demanding working environments with family commitments. We continue to press for better working conditions for our registrants and are calling on employers to respond to changing career pathways to ensure high-quality patient care is maintained.
‘While the incidents in Dr Eisenhauer’s case were isolated, the matter was referred to a tribunal because dishonesty is treated with the utmost seriousness. Dishonesty risks undermining public trust in the medical profession and it is vital doctors uphold the principles, values and standards of professional behaviour the public rightly expects.’
Related Articles
READERS' COMMENTS [26]
Please note, only GPs are permitted to add comments to articles
I would like to think that this could have been addressed in a more sympathetic and less heavy-handed way by conversation and a commitment to do better in the future rather than ending up with the full weight of the regulatory authorities. Maybe I’m wrong. Just a thought
There is obviously more going on here. A young mothers judgement is bound to be biased towards the welfare of her children. I wonder if she felt empowered to ask for flexibility from the practice. GMC over reaction.
No patient suffered any harm
This seems a very excessive suspension period of 5m for 1 episode.
It contrasts with an nhs consultant Dr Richard Smith who had a sexual relationship with his own patient (was front page daily mail} and lied about it to GMC who was only suspended for 2 years…
She was a SALARIED GP, must have been reported to GMC by a PARTNER. Another reason to dismantle GMS PMS etc and make everyone at same level.
and this could have been sorted at Practice level rather than going to GMC
I think we also need to raise an improtnwt question of why we can’t see it even as possible that a 4:30 and 4.40 appointment will mean she isn’t able to leave in time to collect the children at 6pm. It shows that the complexity of our patients has grown, the expectation of what we can do in 10-15min appointments and the perception that just because our last appointment may finish at 5pm does not mean we finish our working day anywhere near to this time.
Says a great deal about the Practice dynamics that she felt unable to ask any colleagues to pick up a few appointments …. or that the existing working arrangements didn’t allow enough flexibility for child care. However, with these tales there is invariably far more going on than is revealed and there is always a potential for issues with salaried v partners in mixed practice where both have different working arrangements. Been there, got the T Shirt … it’s often messy….
Thank you for publishing our thoughts. I hope that Dr Eisenhauer finds a little solace in the immense showing of public support for her, even in the tabloid press.
Who on earth thought that was appropriate for the GMC? And that includes the GMC
Seems like she was thrown under a bus by the practice/ partners.
Glad I don’t know them.
One would have to ask why her scheduled finish time was amended without regard to her need to collect her children. This would constitte a safeguarding matter.
Then why did she feel she had to lie about it, rather than schedule 2 ten-minute sessions of ‘Admin Time’ or something similar? Was there not anyone else who could have covered the short period of her absence? Really ?
It all points to possibly significant problems in the Practice that could not be dealt with any other way, in her rapid assessment.
Clearly a “ hanging offence” amazed the GMC were so enlightened😂😂😂
Laughable that the GMC was even involved.
Gross misconduct? Sure.
Sackable? Probably.
Suspension? Bwahahaha.
Surely it’s more about the fact that she falsified the GP notes than that she added ghost patients in order to manage the day. (Which let’s be honest probably happens far more than we would like to admit) A patient seeing this entry in their NHS notes would lose confidence and understandably complain. This may have been taken out of the hands of the partnership.
Jeez, is the GMC really this dense? They should have just given her a letter of advice, and let her carry on working/earning. One of the partners had already dealt with the issue in-house, ie locally, and it seems she had shown remorse and insight (and presumably she would be reflecting on it in her upcoming appraisal).
The article says she self-referred to the GMC. Why?
It seems she may generally be a conscientious GP, who suffered a lapse of judgement re the blocking of appointments, then further crucified herself by a self-referral to the incompetent GMC!
Whilst dishonesty should be taken seriously, first I would hope most of us would have sorted this out within the practice and only reported to GMC if there was no insight or were repeated episodes (I know she self reported to GMC, but this normally happens because someone is given no alternative – self-report or we will).
I think the tribunal was wrong to find that she was impaired at the time of the hearing – she was when committed the dishonesty but had reflected and remediated for this.
The ‘sentence’ is excessive and does not fit the crime – conditions with requirement for mentoring would have been more fitting if any action was to be taken.
Finally the GMC was wrong to state that she put herself above her job. What she did was to put her children above her job. Looking back at my career, there were many times when in hindsight I wish I had done the same.
I blushed on reading this as I have entered Micky Mouse Test patient to block off a slot drom time to time. You do have to let the team know you need to get away or start the clinic earlier.
This is not excessive. The doctor went out of her way to try and cover up her lies and when confronted lied again.
This would have been dealt with internally if said doctor had admitted fault and apologies and reflected on their behaviour
correct
I’ll just leave this here …
Guidance when violence and dishonesty may represent a lower risk to public protection
GMC decision makers will now be able to weigh the full circumstances of a concern earlier in the fitness to practise process to assess the overall risk to public protection including to public confidence in the profession– meaning some concerns may not need to be investigated or referred to a tribunal.
Concerns that fall under the guidance are those that are minor in nature and did not impact patient care. Allegations of violence and dishonesty which raise a risk to public protection, including where there is a history of repeated behaviour, will continue to be investigated.
https://www.gmcdefencebarristers.co.uk/2024/04/doctors-facing-allegations-of-violence-dishonesty/
Sorry to agree with judgement. She did charge for work not done, lied and then in effect altered the notes.
If the booking system was default face to face ( which it should be) rather than the stupid phone and e-triage system then this would not have happened
I have a lot of sympathy for her but there is the matter of probity on which GMC is clear. Surely it would have been better to be honest with colleagues, ask them to cover, most would be sympathetic, and offer to do the same for them. That would hopefully be the cooperative way a nice organisation would work. It was the lying and falsifying records that were of concern
The sanction is clearly excessive and unwarranted although the GMC has taken other factors into account as noted above. The childcare issue is one where I believed doctors were in fact at an advantage . When our children were young , I decided to work out of hours doing evening or overnight sessions and did so for many years. This was so my partner whose job had no flexibility, could work in the mornings and on my return from overnight shifts I would drop off the kids or otherwise depending on the session times or other factors . Doctors do have more flexibility than many other professions whether we admit this or not and this is often a matter of choices regarding income, willingness to change etc..
My first thought was – it’s an unpleasant world we live in when an employee feels that she cannot ask for flexibility for childcare, and/or an employer won’t give it. Then I realised she was a locum, which does make things a bit different.
It seems an excessive sentence. It is punishment and nothing to do with patient safety. The MPT really don’t like dishonesty, of any kind – and she did not come clean in the first instance. Nevertheless …
“Dr Richard Smith who had a sexual relationship with his own patient (was front page daily mail)”
This is absolutely disgraceful! Admitting to read the Daily Mail!