Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

2. Miss D complains about a COVID-19 vaccine she was given by the Trust on 15 April 2021. Miss D had previously received her first COVID-19 vaccine, which was an Astra Zeneca vaccine, at a different vaccine centre. She did not suffer any side effects from this Astra Zeneca vaccine. She says, at that time the advice was to always give the same brand of vaccine. However, even though she gave the vaccination nurse her card showing what brand of vaccine her first vaccine was, they gave her a Pfizer vaccine. Miss D realised what had happened immediately after and pointed it out to a member of staff. Miss D says the staff member told the vaccination nurse what had happened, and all they said was she could go home after the first 15 minutes, and then to let them know if she developed any symptoms over the next 24 hours.

3. Miss D suffered severe swelling overnight and has been off work since due to her symptoms. She works as a health care assistant in the NHS and has been told she must remain at home. She does not know how much longer she is going to be off sick for. She says she has also now developed another condition because of the Pfizer vaccine. She says her physical, mental, and emotional wellbeing have been significantly damaged, which is also impacting on her children.

4. Miss D says she wants the Trust to be more cautious and thoroughly check things before administering a vaccine, to avoid this happening in the future. She also wants financial compensation.

Administering a different vaccine

6. 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 Miss D 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.

7. When we spoke with Miss D on 11 January, she told us that she wants a financial remedy of at least £50,000. This is because she is seeking sufficient financial remedy to compensate her for her loss of earnings, including future earnings. She does not and cannot know at this stage, how long that might be for. While it is possible we could award a financial remedy if we went on to find failings in this case, the amount Miss D is seeking is higher than we would usually award on our severity of injustice scale.

8. We therefore feel her case is better suited to a court of law, which is the most appropriate place to have cases such as this properly considered. The clinical negligence process exists solely to remedy those types of claims.

9. We have considered whether there may be anything preventing Miss D from pursuing a legal remedy, such as whether the potential amount of time involved in a legal claim is disproportionate to the costs that would be awarded should she be successful. Due to the large amount of compensation Miss D is seeking, we do not consider it disproportionate for her to pursue a clinical negligence claim. We discussed the possibility of a no-win-no-fee arrangement, which Miss D is familiar with, to fund the cost of any claim.

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

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

12. We are aware Miss D is also seeking service improvements to prevent vaccination errors like this happening in the future. Yet we still think it is more appropriate for her to pursue her case through the courts. This is because if the court find negligence, the Trust will be required to put in place changes to ensure it does not happen again, so Miss D could still achieve both outcomes through the courts.

13. In summary, having reconsidered her options, we have concluded Miss D has a legal remedy available to her, and we are satisfied it is reasonable for her to use that route. We have therefore decided we will not take further action on her complaint. We hope we have explained the thorough consideration we have given to our decision and clearly outlined the reasons for it.

1. We have carefully considered Miss D’s complaint about Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). We are sorry to learn about Miss D’s experience, which we can understand must have been, and continues to be, very debilitating and distressing for her. Having weighed up the evidence provided by Miss D, we consider she could take legal action on the matter she has brought to us.