‘The GP everyone is talking about’
Dr Katie Musgrave reflects on how the suspension of a GP who blocked out appointments to pick up her children has shown the failures in the working conditions of general practice
Poor Dr Eisenhauer. You can’t have failed to have read about the GP who blocked two appointments one fateful Friday afternoon, in order to guarantee a reliable finish time to collect her children. She was tired and stressed. She worked in a busy surgery where leaving on time was difficult. She was at risk of losing her childcare provision. Then, unfortunately, she lied about it.
Now, I am not going to spend this blog reflecting on the rights or wrongs of falsifying patient notes, or appointments. Because we all know that’s wrong. Still, in some way, at some point, I’d wager we’ve all recorded something that isn’t 100% accurate. But most of us won’t have had articles published in media outlets up and down the country debating our shortcomings. We are all men (or women) in glass houses, in some fashion, after all.
The aspect I’d like to reflect on, is one of context, and one of fairness. If, theoretically speaking, Dr Eisenhauer found herself working in an environment where she had to stay late 30 minutes to an hour late every day for years, would that change the debate somewhat? Do we think she had ever been paid a penny in overtime, for the hours spent at work beyond those contracted?
And if, theoretically speaking, this were the case – is it fair that she should be hauled before her professional regulator and suspended for five months for trying to ensure a reliable finish time? I mean, she wasn’t booking dummy patients so she could do her online shopping or get a manicure done. She was working flat out until her scheduled finish time, and needed to get away promptly, as she was a parent with responsibilities. She wasn’t – as the media might like to portray – a rich locum GP raking in cash while booking herself up with fake patients. From the sounds of it, her practice isn’t any worse than any other – and it is to their credit that they are standing by her and offering their support.
But what generally happens when GPs raise concerns about workload or finish times? ‘If you have fewer appointments, everyone else will expect to have fewer’; or ‘We need that number of appointments on a Friday as there are only X numbers of staff in’; or ‘See how you get on and we can adjust your schedule if it’s difficult to get away on time.’ There’s always a reason why GPs have to do more, and for those of us with childcare responsibilities especially, this can cause immense difficulty.
In fact, the more I reflect on the case, the more irate I become. I am angry with my colleagues; who have normalised excessive workloads, so that none of us now expect to finish within our contracted hours. I am angry at the GMC; our spineless regulator, who fails to recognise the systematic abuse of staff which leaves people burnt out, depressed, and sometimes desperate. We are presented with entirely unrealistic expectations of ‘Good Medical Practice’ – while being asked to stay later, pick up the pieces, and cover over the shortcomings of a failing healthcare system. I am angry with the Government; who piles mountains of work upon GPs and then introduce ridiculous policies like compulsory online access all day every day, forcing us to divert time to increasingly inane enquiries. Of course, our health secretary will be rubbing his hands in glee at the story about Dr Eisenhauer – ‘rich, lazy, dishonest GP – the cause of the NHS’s ills.’ It is the perfect dead cat strategy, to distract from the pitiful access to healthcare that his Government is presiding over.
So yes, everyone is talking about Dr Eisenhauer. But what they should actually be talking about are: GPs’ working conditions; the stress we are under; the lack of flexibility for parents and caregivers; and the completely unrealistic expectations placed upon us – that could drive anyone to the brink. As a profession, I personally think we should stand behind Dr Eisenhauer, and let her know she has our support. Because this isn’t and wasn’t fair; and she could even be considered the victim here.
Dr Katie Musgrave is a GP in Devon
Have you got a view you want to share with Pulse?
We’re always open to first-hand pieces and opinions from GPs.
Email your piece for consideration to be published on our site.
Related Articles
READERS' COMMENTS [25]
Please note, only GPs are permitted to add comments to articles
The GP registrars in my area are complaining that they can’t get shifts in Out of Hours because of the anti-social hours – in particular, those with families. Somewhat ironically, the entire service is staffed by mothers and fathers of young families. I thought people were coming to do GP because it was flexible?
How did this end up with the GMC?.There must surely be some type of tension in this practice which is not being dealt with by the partners?.As far as I can see no patient was harmed as an outcome to this “horrendous crime”Where are the adults in the room?A civilised discussion between the doctors is all that is required.Common sense should have prevailed.
Not sure if this article is in any way an accurate reflection of the factors taken into consideration which analyse some important issues;
https://www.mpts-uk.org/-/media/mpts-rod-files/dr-helen-eisenhauer–09-dec-25.pdf
^ Quite right. As usual, the advice behind the headline is “Read the MPTS report and see how the headlines have twisted it”
I am rendered speechless by the appalling conduct of the GMC
Well said, Dr Musgrave. Every social media report I’ve read offers support and empathy to this GP. I hope this case has highlighted the unreasonable working conditions of many GPs, the utter cluelessness of the Dept of Health and the shortcomings of the GMC in missing the point entirely.
Having read the MTPS GMC report I am even more convinced that this was very badly handled.This should have been dealt with in -house by the practice partners having a robust “discussion” with their colleague about how they may have been able to help her avoid the sack cloth and ashes.Did she really refer herself to the GMC???
I believe the partners asked her to report herself to the GMC .What utter utter @@@@@@ I am appalled at that and the suspension. I hope she gets work far away from that shower of @@@@@ No wonder so many are leaving the NHS . Never heard of anything so bad in 42 years of being. Doctor
Well done Katie for highlighting how a failing GP system is punished by our regulator, the CQC, NHSE, etc all apparently keen to destroy the very fabric of a highly valued, cost effective, relational care system that patients loved.
Who reported it and why?
But before that, Why did she feel it necessary to do this instead of discussing her need with someone else at the practice to swap cover, even if only temporary?
This is a very sad marker that there was something more wrong than appears on the surface.
I did put MIckey Test Mouse as a last patient in the appointment book a couple of times
Used to be Golden Girl Test Phoenix round this end!
But anyway – the GMC ruling, the usual legalese bombast. “Woe unto you, GMC, hypocrites! for ye…have omitted the weightier matters of….justice, mercy and faith.”
Or, in Delboy’s words,
“GMC, you bunch of plonkers!”
I have total sympathy for this Dr. This is the situation I find myself in daily here in the North West as a locum. The worsening traffic situation has meant that I am reducing my hours ever more and refusing work to make sure I pick my child on time. At the previous practice I was a long term locum my sessions were reduced and stopped due to a combination of ARRS and my inability to provide longer hours. This despite the hundreds of hours of extra unpaid work I put in for the practice in the preceding years. While this Dr’s probity has been questioned Dr Musgrave is absolutely right to raise the issue of employment rights and conditions not to mention the responsibility of GP partners as employers. If anything this should have gone to a employment tribunal for fair hearing or as suggested, settled inhouse over a cup of tea.
I read the MPTS report. Sledgehammer to crack a walnut. Should never have ended up in such a punitive sanction. Partners should have sorted out, written warning at worst. I hope she finds somewhere better to work.
This is not about terms and conditions This is at best about poor communication and at worst lying and falsifying medical records.
Second article with the same misleading phrase pulse. Slots were not blocked out – real patients were booked into appointments that didn’t occur and in one case an entry was made in the notes.
I agree with some but not all of the sympathetic sentiments in the articles and comments, but please be accurate in reporting the facts of the case.
Having read some more comments,I still think this is a massive over reaction.The GMC should not have agreed to be involved in this! If anything this is an internal practice misdemeanour unless anyone can explain to me otherwise.The only people that seem to be slighted are other members of staff at the practice-unless this woman actually wanted to prostrate herself at the altar of the GMC!!
There does seem to be an issue with the practice dynamics here. The Dr. had been a salaried doctor there for some years. It seems odd that she could not have approached the partners or the manager to explain that she had a problem with child care and had to leave no later than a specific time.
Her rather panicked solution was the wrong one but the GMC response seems over the top and disproportionate.
Medical Practice and Undermines Trust in the Profession.
* Impairment: Her fitness to practise was deemed impaired because her conduct (dishonesty) was serious and risked bringing the medical profession into disrepute.
* Mitigating Factors: The tribunal acknowledged Dr. Eisenhauer was under significant stress at the time due to “sleep deprivation resulting from her parenting responsibilities” and the pressure of balancing work with childcare. They also noted her otherwise exemplary character and high level of clinical proficiency.
Sanction
The tribunal determined that a five-month suspension was the appropriate sanction.
* They rejected “taking no action” or “conditions” as insufficient to mark the seriousness of dishonesty.
* They decided against “erasure” (striking off) because the incident was isolated, Dr. Eisenhauer had shown insight and remediation (e.g., attending probity courses), and there were no clinical safety concerns for patients.
* The suspension is intended to send a clear signal about professional standards while allowing her to return to practice after a period of reflection.
I don’t know why the partner feels this needs to go straight to the GMC given the report says she is a good doctor overall up until now. It is not as if she is a repeat offender or dangerous to patients, which this isn’t about. I have quite openly discussed with many colleagues and medical friends that there is not enough incentive for the GMC to change, and it is a single cartel.
Should have said the summary from the MPTS report I have summarised using a LLM
Based on the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) Record of Determinations dated 9 December 2025, here is a summary of the hearing regarding Dr. Helen Eisenhauer.
Overview
* Doctor: Dr. Helen Eisenhauer, a General Practitioner (GP) at Stenhouse Medical Centre, Nottingham.
* Hearing Dates: 1–9 December 2025.
* Outcome: Dr. Eisenhauer’s fitness to practise was found to be impaired by reason of misconduct, and she was suspended for 5 months.
The Allegations & Facts
The tribunal reviewed events from July 2024 relating to dishonesty in appointment management and record-keeping:
* The Incident (17 July 2024): Dr. Eisenhauer booked “fake” face-to-face appointments for two patients she had already consulted via telephone earlier that day. She did this to block the slots in her schedule, ensuring she could finish work at 4:45 PM to pick up her children from after-school care by 6:00 PM.
* Falsification of Records (19 July 2024): When a colleague noticed an anomaly (an appointment booking with no corresponding clinical notes), Dr. Eisenhauer made a retrospective entry in one patient’s medical record, falsely claiming she had seen and examined them face-to-face.
* Dishonesty: Dr. Eisenhauer initially denied acting dishonestly during internal practice meetings in August 2024 and in her initial self-referral to the GMC in September 2024. However, she fully admitted to the allegations by the time of the tribunal.
Tribunal Findings
* Misconduct: The tribunal ruled that her actions constituted serious misconduct. Falsifying medical records is a breach of Good Medical Practice and undermines trust in the profession.
* Impairment: Her fitness to practise was deemed impaired because her conduct (dishonesty) was serious and risked bringing the medical profession into disrepute.
* Mitigating Factors: The tribunal acknowledged Dr. Eisenhauer was under significant stress at the time due to “sleep deprivation resulting from her parenting responsibilities” and the pressure of balancing work with childcare. They also noted her otherwise exemplary character and high level of clinical proficiency.
Sanction
The tribunal determined that a 5-month suspension was the appropriate sanction.
* They rejected “taking no action” or “conditions” as insufficient to mark the seriousness of dishonesty.
* They decided against “erasure” (striking off) because the incident was isolated, Dr. Eisenhauer had shown insight and remediation (e.g., attending probity courses), and there were no clinical safety concerns for patients.
* The suspension is intended to send a clear signal about professional standards while allowing her to return to practice after a period of reflection.
I think it went to GMC as it is alleged she falsified records to say she had seen someone f2f and examined them when it had been a telephone encounter.. looking a the information I’ve read. I agree practices need to be flexible.. within reason, but that is something for the employee and employer to discuss not the GMC, I think the only reason she was referred was because of the falsification.
There were times when I was a senior partner that I would see my colleagues’ patients to let them get home on time. They would then forgive me my errors and generally pay back the favour in helpful ways. This was possible because i was trained in 1982 when it was patient centred care, and the problem was sorted efficiently and quickly. The current guideline approach with all its endless tick boxes and recording negative findings, is a triumph of lawyers over medics. It has made the work tedious and slow, taken much of the joy out of GP work, and given rise to sad situations like this.
I retired but got bored, so now work in dermatology. I notice lots of issues in this hospital subject, and am horrified by the shared care agreements we send out for methotrexate patients. Again, its a legal blunderbuss of 10 sides of small print that no GP has time to read and only serves to raise anxiety and anoyance. It gets in the way of decent communication between doctors.
We have been taken over by legal and insurance issues and they are severely damaging general practice which used to be a wonderful career.
I have every sympathy for this lady. It could and should have been handled in house. I have covered for other doctors within my area (I was a single hander) when child problems arose. They in turn covered for me if SHTF and I was needed. No problems, no GMC. It says a lot that she had to fabricate this mess to cover when a quick word to a colleague and hopefully sorted. My advice would be to move away from what is clearly a toxic environment. Pull the horns in and enjoy the break.
Spot on Paul Attwood
A ‘ one -off’ act of foolish dishonesty it could be resolved by a very thorough, honest and frank discussion to including reviewing of all the factors that might have provoked and looking at how the working arrangements of the practice could be modified.
That could work .
It needs a lot of trust, honesty, respect and cooperation from everyone..
However, if the scrutiny of her work that led to the case was not a ‘one-off ‘ act of curiosity, but arose from suspicion of long-standing ‘issues’ then , no matter what mitigating factors might be cited, then those basic factors will have already been irrevocably eroded – they will not be able to work happily again together..
Involving the GMC is a serious course of action that may or may not have been the best option – It is easily started, but investigations roll with increasing momentum – the final effects viewed as disproportionately destructive.