Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust

3. Mrs H complains about the angiogram her husband, Mr H, had at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (the Trust) on 19 February 2019. She complains the procedure failed and did not alleviate her husband’s transplant artery blood clot.

4. Mrs H says the failed procedure caused her husband pain and discomfort and prevents him from having a future kidney transplant. She says this has caused her husband significant mental distress and upset. Mrs H says her husband was delayed attending talking therapy, and physiotherapy appointments, because of the recovery time following his angiogram.

5. Mrs H wants the Trust to pay compensation within level 5 of our severity of injustice scale.

6. Mr H had a renal transplant in August 2016, after which he developed a stenosis (narrowing) in his transplant renal artery (artery supplying blood flow to the kidneys). In October 2016, this was treated by the insertion of a stent (small tube inserted into narrowed vessel) to keep the vessel open.

7. In November 2018, a doctor in the transplant clinic reviewed Mr H noting indications of his stent narrowing. It was decided Mr H needed a renal angiogram (an x-ray using a dye to take pictures of the renal arteries) to see if his blood vessels were narrowed or blocked.

8. During Mr H’s angiogram in January 2019, attempts were made to open his narrowed renal artery and insert a new stent, which resulted in the original stent becoming dislodged

10. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has (or had) the option to take legal action, unless we consider this is (or was) unreasonable in the circumstances. We have discussed this with Mrs H to understand her circumstances and the outcomes she wants. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed but whether it would be a reasonable option to look in to.

11. Mrs H told us she wants compensation as an outcome to her complaint and explained the negligence of the doctors significantly impacted her husband’s health, and his future prospect of a kidney transplant. She says doctors told her husband he would be unable to have a kidney transplant in the future following the angiogram. The date of the procedure was in January 2019, and we consider Mrs H to be within the three year statutory time limit to start a clinical negligence claim. We think Mrs H has a legal remedy available to her

12. We spoke with Mrs H to understand how much compensation she wanted as an outcome to her complaint. She initially responded she was unsure. We sent Mrs H our guide to financial remedy so she could see the types of injustices we make recommendations on, and the corresponding amount of financial remedy we can recommend should we uphold a complaint.

13. Mrs H confirmed she thought her husband’s injustice was within level 5 of our scale (£3,000 - £9,950). She said the reason for this was because the doctors insisted on inserting a new stent into her husband’s artery during the angiogram procedure, which worsened his condition. She says this has removed her husband’s opportunity to have a kidney transplant in the future, which she says he needs due to his underlying health conditions.

14. We think we could achieve the outcome Mrs H wants, if we were to find evidence of failings, but we are not best placed to do so. The injustice Mrs H claims her husband experienced is within our scale and is an amount we could recommend for an upheld complaint. However, we think Mrs H could likely achieve the compensation she wants if she pursued a legal route to its end point, compared to a recommendation we could make.

15. We are mindful Mrs H seeks only compensation as an outcome to her complaint and want to ensure she is given the best opportunity to achieve this. If Mrs H were to make a clinical negligence claim, she would have until approximately January 2022 to do so. If we did go on to consider Mrs H’s complaint now, she would likely miss this deadline, if she decided to pursue a legal route in the future. If she does pursue a legal route now, she is able to bring her complaint back to us if she is advised she cannot pursue a claim in negligence.

16. We wanted to understand whether there were any barriers preventing Mrs H from pursuing a legal route, and whether she would be willing to do so. Mrs H said she would be willing to approach a solicitor and did not know this was an option before bringing her complaint to us. She said as her husband’s full-time carer, both her and her husband are in receipt of Universal Credit and are unemployed.

17. Mrs H was concerned about needing to pay potential legal costs, which she said she could not afford, and also her needing to attend a solicitor’s office to discuss a potential claim. We explained to Mrs H she could approach a ‘no-win no-fee’ or conditional fee arrangement law firm to seek advice from it on a potential clinical negligence claim.

18. We explained this is free of charge and that any costs associated are usually clearly indicated by the firm, as well as which stage of the process they would be charged. We also explained to Mrs H most law firms can speak with her over the telephone to reduce the need for her to attend an office.

19. Other factors we consider include seeing if there is anything preventing Mrs H from pursuing a legal remedy, is whether the potential amount of time involved in a legal claim is disproportionate to the costs that would be awarded should Mrs H be successful. Due to the large amount of compensation Mrs H is seeking, we do not consider it disproportionate for her to pursue a clinical negligence claim.

20. We also look at the complexity of the matter being pursued. In this case, we do not consider the nature of Mrs H’s complaint to be so complex that it would be difficult for her to pursue a clinical negligence claim.

21. We therefore think it is reasonable for Mrs H to pursue a legal route to achieve the full amount of compensation she wants and do not think she is prevented from doing so.

1. We have carefully considered Mrs H’s complaint about Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (the Trust). We consider the concerns Mrs H brought to us about the angiogram her husband had, and the impact this had on his renal artery, can be pursued by a legal route.

2. We were sorry to hear of Mr H’s experience and understand it was difficult for Mrs H to see her husband so unwell because of the procedure he had.