Blog

Grievances in GP Practices: Are you at risk of a misdiagnosis?

Written by Sarah Young | 23-Mar-2026 15:18:49

Handling grievances is always challenging but never more so than in Primary Care. With close-knit environments, teams working under constant pressure and working relationships being long-standing and personal, issues can escalate quickly. There isn’t room for poor communication or unresolved tension, both of which can seriously impact staff morale and, ultimately, patient care.

Practice Managers and Partners are expected to manage conflicts fairly and quickly, while maintaining trust across the team. But what happens when a grievance becomes complex, sensitive, or is just too close to home? Perhaps the grievance implicates the Partners or the Practice Manager, or perhaps using internal staff to manage the grievance risks being seen as bias or “taking sides”, ultimately making working relationships even more complicated. 

In these situations, practices should not overlook the option of using an external investigator. At Porter Dodson, we’ve seen an increase in GP practices, in common with other clients, turning to external HR advisors and other third parties to investigate and conclude grievances. Quite aside from shirking responsibility, it can be a really sensible decision.

Here's a look at the key considerations, to help you decide whether it’s the approach for your practice.

The Pros!

•    Objectivity and impartiality

External investigators bring a fresh, unbiased perspective. If the grievance involves senior staff or long-standing team members, external input can help avoid any perception of internal bias or favouritism. 

•    Expertise and compliance

External professionals often have extensive experience in employment law, HR processes. They’re less likely to make procedural errors that could later expose the practice to legal challenge

•    Reduces internal tensions

In small teams, handling a grievance internally can cause ongoing friction. An external party can help reduce personal conflicts and allow team relationships to recover more easily post-investigation.

•    Saves time

Grievance processes can be time-consuming and emotionally draining. Outsourcing the process allows you to stay focused on running the practice without the distraction and pressure of managing an investigation.

•    Perception of fairness
Staff are often more willing to accept the outcome of a grievance where they believe the process has been independent and fair, event if they disagree with the conclusions. 

The Cons!

•    Cost

Hiring external support comes with a price tag. For smaller practices, this may be a significant consideration, especially for lengthy investigations but this has to be weighed against the cost of dealing with an unhappy employee or a Tribunal claim. 

•    Loss of control

Employers often fear handing over the reins and fear any potential criticism that could possibly be heading their way, which might otherwise be swept under the carpet. In reality, a bit of constructive criticism is a good thing, and helps avoid issues arising in the future.

•    Lack of practice-specific context

An external person may not understand the nuances of your practice’s culture, working relationships, or internal dynamics potentially leading to conclusions that miss the bigger picture. Careful briefing and access to relevant background information are essential. 

•    Staff discomfort

Staff may feel uneasy speaking to someone from outside the practice, particularly in a small or rural community. This could impact how open or cooperative they are during the process.

When Might It Be the Right Choice?

You might consider using an external investigator if:

•    The grievance involves senior staff or the Practice Manager.
•    There’s a conflict of interest internally, or an internal dispute about the grievance amongst the Partnership.
•    Previous grievances have not gone to plan.
•    The issue is legally complex or could escalate to a tribunal.

Final Thoughts

Using an external person to conduct a grievance process isn’t always necessary but in certain situations, it can provide the impartiality and professionalism needed to ensure a fair outcome and protect the Practice from risk. The key is assessing the complexity of the issue and weighing that against your internal capacity, expertise, and team dynamics.


We work closely with trusted HR providers and other professionals who understand the realities of general practice, and can help you decide the most appropriate next step; whether that’s handling matters in-house or bringing in independent support. If in doubt, seek advice early as it can prevent a manageable issue from escalating into something far more serious. 

Contact our Primary Care team on care@porterdodson.co.uk for any advice on this topic.