This site uses cookies.

Lack of Post-Accident GP Attendance: a Poor Indicator of Psychological Symptom Severity in Adults - Dr Jacquie Hetherton, Clinical Psychologist, Hugh Koch Associates

10/07/13. It is often assumed that there is a linear relationship between symptom severity and GP attendance. Thus a lack of GP attendance is taken to denote mild symptoms even though a claimant may report symptoms that are severe and disabling. In my clinical experience there are multiple factors that disrupt the relationship between symptom severity and GP attendance.

Specifically, there are many reasons other than a claimant having mild symptoms that account for a lack of GP consultation post-accident. These include: having a poor relationship with one’s GP, having previous negative or dismissive consultations with the GP, a belief that a GP is not psychologically minded and therefore will have little interest in one’s symptoms, an expectation that a GP’s response to report of psychological symptoms will be to prescribe psychotropic medication, shame and embarrassment about reporting psychological symptoms (particularly relevant in men), not wishing to have psychological symptoms detailed in one’s medical notes, a belief that one’s symptoms are trivial relative to the GP’s other patients and having an independent coping style such that going to one’s GP takes place only as an absolute last resort.

The above reasons explain why, in many cases, individuals do not consult with their GP and live instead with severe and enduring accident-related symptoms, sometimes years post-accident. Thus although an absence of GP attendance can be viewed as weakening a claimant’s case, there are many reasons why this is not necessarily so.

Dr Jacquie Hetherton regularly holds clinics in London.
More information can be obtained via www.hughkochassociates.co.uk.

 

Image ©iStockphoto.com/RapidEye

All information on this site was believed to be correct by the relevant authors at the time of writing. All content is for information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. No liability is accepted by either the publisher or the author(s) for any errors or omissions (whether negligent or not) that it may contain. 

The opinions expressed in the articles are the authors' own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand. 

Professional advice should always be obtained before applying any information to particular circumstances.

Excerpts from judgments and statutes are Crown copyright. Any Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under the Open Government Licence.