A phone number is not enough. The clinic must answer. The Supreme Administrative Court has ruled that medical entities are obliged to provide patients with a real possibility of contacting the registration by phone. This confirms the position of the Patient Ombudsman, who has been pointing out for years that the inability to call a clinic constitutes a violation of patients' collective rights.
Landmark court ruling: No contact with registration is a violation of patients' rights
Published Oct. 8, 2025 07:48
Fot. Thinkstock
Treatment entities that have a contract with the National Health Fund for primary health care must organizationally ensure that patients have a realistic possibility of contacting the registration by phone. To do otherwise, the justification stresses, is a violation of patients' collective rights.
Patient Ombudsman Bartlomiej Chmielowiec has repeatedly received signals from patients who have been unable to reach their primary care physician's clinic. The problem is particularly acute during periods of increased morbidity, when lines are overloaded and patients are unable to make an appointment.
"Simply providing patients with registration phone numbers is not sufficient. Registration staff are required to answer calls on an ongoing basis, according to the facility's time schedule. The clinic's management should monitor the load on phone lines and respond to problems as they arise, if necessary. For example, delegate employees from other positions to answer phones, hire new staff, start an additional phone number for patients, or introduce a queuing system," Bartlomiej Chmielowiec stresses.
The issue of telephone contact has previously been analyzed by the Regional Administrative Court in Warsaw. In the judgment, ref. V SA/Wa 3197/21, the court pointed out that the duty of due diligence also applies to ensuring that patients can register. A telephone call, the court held, should be answered immediately or after a short waiting period.
However, a judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court on July 29, 2025 (ref. II GSK 87/22) set a precedent on this issue. The court stated that it is not the number of violations, but their potential nature that determines the violation of patients' collective rights. This means that the clinic is obliged to organize the registration process in such a way as to minimize the risk of obstructed contact.
The NSA overturned an earlier ruling by the WSA, which overturned the Ombudsman's decision. In doing so, it confirmed that the Patient Ombudsman was correct in finding that the lack of effective contact with the registrar is a violation of patients' rights to proper service and availability of services.
In the opinion of the Patient Ombudsman, this judgment is groundbreaking and finally confirms the correct line of jurisprudence of administrative courts - among others in cases with case numbers V SA/Wa 4782/21, V SA/Wa 3197/21, V SA/Wa 2642/22, V SA/Wa 189/23, V SA/Wa 93/23, VIII SA/Wa 25/23, V SA/Wa 1071/22, V SA/Wa 489/23, V SA/Wa 184/23.
The NSA's verdict thus sends a clear message to all PCPs: simply having a phone number is not enough. Registration must work - and the patient is supposed to have a real, not illusory, possibility to call the clinic.
Source: MPC
