NHS in England Closed After Initial Enquiries Search on PHSO website

University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust

P-001554 · Statement · Decision date: 2 September 2022 · View University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust scorecard
Hospital acquired infection / healthcare-associated infection Clinical negligence harms learning
Complaint (AI summary)
Ms N complained a stitch was left in her groin after heart surgery in 2019, leading to infection and permanent nerve damage, severely affecting her mobility.
Outcome (AI summary)
Not upheld. The Ombudsman declined to investigate as the complaint fell outside their statutory time limit.

Full decision details

The Complaint

3. Ms N complains that on 10 September 2019 a stitch was left in her groin after heart surgery, which caused an infection. Ms N states that the infection had not cleared up when she was discharged from hospital. She believes it should have been treated and cured before she was discharged.

4. Ms N says she developed a groin infection which has left her with life-altering impacts such as permanent nerve damage to her leg. Due to this she is struggling with her mobility, specifically around her home.

5. Ms N would like changes made within the Trust and feedback given to the surgeon to make sure this does not happen again. Ms N says she would like to be financially stable. Due to the nerve damage in her leg, she now walks with a stick. She seeks compensation of £10,000 for a deposit for a property with disabled access and features.

Findings

7. The law says a person needs to make their complaint to us within a year of becoming aware of the problem. We cannot investigate complaints brought to us after one year, unless we consider there is a good reason. We have discussed this with Ms N to understand the reasons why she could not bring her complaint to us sooner. We have also considered the time the Trust has taken to respond to Ms N’s complaint.

8. Ms N confirmed she knew of her reason to complain when she attended an appointment on 21 October 2019 and a wound specialist noticed a stitch had been left in her groin. Ms N confirms, once the stitch was removed, she knew this was the cause of the infection and odour in her groin. We consider this to be Ms N’s date of knowledge. For her complaint to be in time, Ms N would have needed to approach us by 21 October 2020. Ms N brought her complaint to us on 7 October 2021. Her complaint is out of time by one year, and it is important we consider the reasons why.

9. Ms N first complained to the Trust about her care on 15 March 2020, five months after her date of knowledge. Ms N says the reason for this was she was gathering evidence to make the complaint.

10. We recognise the immediate time after Ms N’s treatment would have been very difficult and upsetting. We do not underestimate the distress experienced by Ms N and her mother during this time. It remains the delay that occurred here is very significant. We do not consider the length of this delay to be reasonable.

11. The Trust responded to Ms N’s complaint in June 2020. Ms N had no control over the time the Trust took to respond, for this reason we will put the period from March to June 2020 to one side.

12. The Trust’s response signposted Ms N to our service. This means that Ms N and her mother had information they needed to raise the complaint with us from June 2020. Ms N’s mother explained they did not do this due to her not having a computer. Ms N’s correspondence with the Trust was via email, meaning they had the means to access our website, as well as our contact number to contact us via telephone. We do not consider this is sufficient reason for us to put this period of time to one side.

13. Ms N received the final response from the Trust in December 2020. This included all relevant information for contacting us for an independent review. Ms N did not bring the complaint to us until October 2021, which is a delay of ten months. When discussing the reason for this delay, Ms N’s mother explained that this was due to COVID-19. Our offices were open, and we were accepting complaints during this period. We do not consider this is sufficient reason for us to put this period of time to one side.

14. Ms N brought her complaint to us in October 2021, one year passed our time limit. While we have taken into account the time immediately after Ms N’s treatment and the time the Trust took to respond to her complaint, we do not see sufficient reason for the other delays. We recognise how upsetting the events have been, and continue to be, for her and her mother. It remains that we see various opportunities where we consider she could have pursued her complaint much sooner. For this reason, we will be taking no further action on this complaint.

Our Decision

1. We have carefully considered Ms N’s complaint about the care she received at University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) on 10 September 2019. We recognise these events continue to cause Ms N ongoing upset and distress.

2. After careful consideration, we have decided not to consider the complaint further. This is because the complaint falls outside of our time limit.

Other Decisions About University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust

P-004592 · 9 Jan 2026
Mrs V complains about the care and treatment provided to her husband by the Trust in April 2024. She says …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-004437 · 28 Nov 2025
Miss A complains about the care and treatment her aunt received towards end of life, at the end of April …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-003458 · 28 Mar 2025
Mr R complains the Trust did not provide the correct assessment and treatment to his son meaning he was discharged …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-001602 · 9 Nov 2022
Miss A complains her father, Mr A, got sepsis and sadly passed away because he had poor dental treatment from …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-001637 · 22 Sep 2022
Ms O complains about the maternity care provided by the Trust.
Closed After Initial Enquiries
View all decisions for this organisation →