Great Western Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

3. Mrs O complains about the care and treatment her son, Mr O, received from Great Western Hospitals NHS foundation Trust (the Trust) when admitted for an endoscopy in October 2020.

4. Mrs O says: • the cannula was tissued and had not been flushed through before, or after, his sedation. She says as a result she does not believe her son was properly sedated • the Trust involved hospital security who falsely claimed her son was being aggressive towards nurses when the endoscopy was abandoned • her son was left for two to three days in a repurposed room for guests and relatives and the room had no toilet or shower facilities.

5. Due to these failings, Mrs O explains her son was left distressed when falsely accused of being aggressive. He was also unable to access appropriate facilities to clean himself during his admittance, which was also in the middle of COVID-19. He was also left with a badly bruised and bleeding arm which had pus coming from the wound.

6. Mrs O seeking financial compensation on behalf of her son.

7. Mr O went to hospital with chest pains and heartburn symptoms. He had been struggling with discomfort for some time and without an apparent cause. The Trust arranged an investigative endoscopy in October 2020 to try and find out the cause of his symptoms.

8. Mr O explains he did not believe the sedation ahead of the procedure worked because he did not feel the effects of it, and because the sedation was not flushed through the cannula before or after it was administered. He explains his arm was swollen with pus coming out of it from the site where the Trust had tried to administer the sedation. He says this means it was unlikely any sedation passed through the cannula. Due to the pain and discomfort, the endoscopy was abandoned when there were difficulties passing the tube down his throat. When Mr O was informed the procedure would not be able to go ahead, he became upset. Nursing staff called security as they said he was being abusive. He complains the level of frustration he expressed was not deserving of the reaction he got from the Trust.

9. Finally, he was put in a room for patient’s relatives for an overnight stay. Mrs O complains this room was not fit for purpose as it had no toilet or sink facilities, despite the incident taking place during COVID-19. She says he had no way of contacting staff from his room when he needed assistance. The Trust has explained the room was used to accommodate more patients during a time when there were bed shortages. It has also explained Mr O did not take well to the procedure, however he was sedated and showed evidence of this.

12. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has the option to take legal action, unless we consider this is unreasonable in the circumstances. We have discussed this with Mrs O to understand her situation 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.

13. We noted Mrs O was seeking financial remedy for the failings she believes occurred both in the lead up to her son’s endoscopy and once this was abandoned. We asked Mr and Mrs O how much they were seeking and explained that we can achieve moderate compensation claims in line with our severity of injustice scale. After an overall review of Mr O’s case, they were advised the remedy would likely sit between a level one and level two (approximately £0 - £250) in compensation if we upheld the complaint and found failings during our investigation.

14. Mrs O was not satisfied with the level of financial compensation we were able to achieve and confirmed she would ideally want to seek a larger sum.

15. Mrs O has a legal remedy available to her through the courts for clinical negligence, as she claims negligence led to poor sedation ahead of the procedure, as well as the subsequent complications. A claim in court could achieve the outcomes she wants, which is financial payment. After discussion with Mrs O, she has confirmed she would prefer to go ahead with legal action in the hopes of achieving a more substantial financial remedy.

16. Section 4 of the Health Service Commissioner Act 1993 (HSCA) states ‘The commissioner shall not investigate in respect of action in relation to which the aggrieved has or had a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law.’ Based on the information at this stage, there does not appear to be any barriers to her proceeding with legal action to achieve her desired outcomes.

17. If Mrs O is unable to pursue legal action for any reason, she can return to us. The law (Section 9(4) of the HSCA) says a person needs to make their complaint to us within a year of becoming aware of the problem. Mrs O should therefore not delay in returning to us should she wish to.

1. We have carefully considered Mrs O’s complaint about Great Western Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). We consider Mrs O could take legal action on the matter that she has brought to us. As such, we have decided not to consider her complaint further and have discussed this with Mrs O.

2. We are sorry to hear about Mrs O’s sons experience during an endoscopy. We appreciate it must have been a difficult time for him.