Wye Valley NHS Trust

3. Ms A complains to us about the care and treatment she received for an injury to her knee at Wye Valley NHS Trust (the Trust) on 16 June 2021. She complains about: · the way she was spoken to by a doctor at the Trust · the Trust’s failure to treat her knee pain · the Trust’s refusal to conduct an arthroscopy investigation.

4. Ms A says that as a result she lost her job and has been unable to work, due to not being able to stand. Ms A says this impacted her mental wellbeing and ability to earn.

5. Ms A would like a sincere personal apology from the doctor who treated her initially. Ms A would also like to be compensated for the distress caused, for any future treatment she may require, and for loss of earnings.

6. Ms A suffered an injury to her knee in November 2020. She saw a trauma and orthopaedics doctor following a referral from her GP on 8 February 2021. A scan was conducted on 2 March 2021. This did not show any injury that could be treated by any surgical procedure. Physiotherapy was started locally, however progress was not as expected.

7. Ms A’s GP referred her to the Trauma and Orthopaedic department at the Trust on 28 April 2021. Ms A’s GP asked for its thoughts on the benefits of surgery, in particular looking inside the knee with a camera (an arthroscopy). The GP indicated a possible diagnosis of complex regional pain syndrome (CPRS) which is a form of chronic pain confined to a single limb.

8. Ms A attended for a consultation at the Trust on 16 June 2021. The Trust was unable to identify a problem with Ms A’s knee that may benefit from surgery, and referred Ms A to a knee surgeon for a second opinion. The Trust agreed with Ms A’s GP that she most likely had CPRS. The Trust discussed possible treatments, the main one being ongoing physical therapy. It also referred Ms A for nerve conduction studies.

9. Ms A told us she had received no treatment from the Trust since she complained to us and needed to use a walking stick.

The way she was spoken to by a doctor at the Trust

11. Ms A seeks a direct written apology from the doctor involved in her initial care. The Trust has accepted failings in how the doctor spoke to Ms A.

12. The Trust spoke to the doctor involved who apologised for the upset and offence caused. The Trust included an apology in its complaint response to Ms A. We would not usually recommend a direct apology from an individual, and we expect the organisations involved in complaints to take corporate responsibility if things go wrong. In this case, we think the Trust’s response is in line with our Principles for Good Complaint Handling. That says that when things go wrong, organisations should apologise, provide an explanation, and acknowledge responsibility. The Trust has done that. Ms A sought an apology, and we consider the Trust has provided a sufficient apology. As we do not think there is anything more for the Trust to do here, we have decided not to consider that part of the complaint.

The Trust’s failure to treat her knee pain and refusal to conduct an arthroscopy investigation

12. 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 unreasonable in the circumstances. We have discussed this with Ms A 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 into.

13. Ms A complains about the Trust not investigating her knee pain properly, delays in treating her knee pain, and the possible need for further treatment to correct the problem.

14. Ms A is seeking compensation for loss of earnings as she was dismissed from her job for medical reasons, for the impact upon her life, and for possible future treatment.

15. In the circumstances of this case, Ms A could pursue a claim of clinical negligence. The remedy she seeks is achievable through such legal proceedings. Ms A told us she did not want to take legal action in the courts but we do not consider that a sufficient reason for not doing so.

16. Therefore, we will decline to proceed with this part of the complaint as a legal route is available to Ms A, and it is not unreasonable to expect her to pursue it.

1. We have carefully considered Ms A’s complaint about the Trust. We were sorry to hear about the problems Ms A is having with her knee, and the impact this has had on her life.

2. We consider Ms A could take legal action on most of her complaint. For her complaint about how the doctor spoke to her, we think the Trust has already done enough to put that right.