University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust

3. Miss Y complains about the care and treatment she received while giving birth at the Trust in February 2022. Specifically, she complains:

• a student nurse twice attempted to insert a cannula (a small, flexible plastic tube inserted into a vein to give medication or fluids), which ruptured a vein • a qualified nurse took over and correctly inserted the cannula, but the same needle was used three times in two different places • nurses did not clearly explain the results of a urine test she had on arrival at the hospital and were not available to address her concerns or answer her questions • staff were slow to diagnose sepsis (a severe infection) and, when the problem was discovered, communication was again poor when the Trust decided she needed an emergency caesarean section (C-section – an operation to deliver a baby) • she was forced to go to a follow-up appointment at the surgery after being told she could have a home appointment and • the apology she received did not adequately accept and explain the problems she had.

4. Miss Y says her hand became very swollen when the cannula was fitted and was not dressed correctly after the bleeding. She says she developed sepsis from the cannula which was inserted several times. She says her mental health has suffered from the distress caused during the birth and the period of aftercare.

5. Miss Y wants an improved apology and financial compensation.

6. Miss Y went to the Trust to have her baby in February 2022. On Miss Y’s arrival, a student nurse attempted to fit a cannula but ruptured a vein. The same needle was inserted into Miss Y’s arm three times.

7 Miss Y reported feeling hot and sick. She requested pain relief but none was given for the first few hours. The Trust then asked Miss Y to provide a urine sample. A midwife told her there were ‘proteins present’ (a warning signal all is not well with the kidneys) but did not explain what this meant. Miss Y says she asked for a C-section but the Trust told her this would not be possible.

8. Approximately fifteen hours into the labour, the Trust told Miss Y she may have sepsis. After she received this diagnosis, she was taken for an emergency C-section under general anaesthetic. After her baby had been delivered, Miss Y was taken to a ward, where she stayed for three days.

9. After Miss Y had been discharged from hospital, a health visitor came to her home and told her the baby would need to have a heel prick test (which involves taking a blood sample to find out if a baby has one of nine rare but serious health conditions). She assured Miss Y this could be done at home as she was still recovering from the C-section. Miss Y later received a voicemail message to say she had to go to the health centre for the test.

11. By law, we cannot investigate a complaint if a person has (or had) the option to take legal action, unless we consider this is (or was) unreasonable in the circumstances. Miss Y suggests she received care which fell below the appropriate standard she could have expected. As a result, she says she suffered pain and distress. She says her symptoms were ignored for too long, which meant she had to have an emergency C-section.

12. We accept how distressing these events have been for Miss Y and are sorry to hear about the impact this has had on her.

13. Miss Y says the actions of the nursing staff led to her hand bleeding and swelling. She believes this, in turn, led to her developing sepsis. From her description, Miss Y is suggesting there may have been clinical negligence (when healthcare professionals cause physical or mental harm because of the poor standard of care they give). We consider Miss Y may have a legal route available, and she may be able to pursue a legal claim for clinical negligence. So, we need to consider if it is reasonable for her to pursue this course of action.

14. We have discussed what we may be able to achieve for Miss Y if we find failings that led to the claimed impact. When we consider outcomes, we look at our severity of injustice scale, which helps us to make consistent and fair decisions across all our work. The scale can be found on our website.

15. The scale has six levels of impact. For example, level two usually refers to injustices lasting no more than 12 months, while level six refers to devastating or irreversible injustices which permanently affect a person. Under our severity of injustice scale, Miss Y would likely receive compensation in line with level two (between £100 and £450). This does not meet the level of compensation she is looking for, so it would be better for her to ask for compensation through legal proceedings.

16. Miss Y tells us she would not be able to fund legal action herself. We have provided her with information from our website to help her find an appropriate solicitor to consider her potential clinical negligence claim. We consider there may be funding available to her, for example, through no win no fee arrangements.

17. Miss Y tells us she feels the apology she received was insincere and the Trust has not accepted its mistakes or the distress both she and her partner have suffered. We are sorry to hear Miss Y feels this way. We consider she could receive a further apology as a by-product of pursuing a legal claim. As the main outcome she wants is financial compensation, this still means legal action is the most appropriate route for her to take.

18. We do not consider the nature of Miss Y’s complaint to be so complicated that it would be difficult for her to pursue a clinical negligence claim. We consider her age and personal circumstances do not prevent her from making a claim.

19. Having considered the evidence Miss Y has given us, we consider it is reasonable for her to pursue legal action on her complaint to help achieve her desired outcome. The courts can independently review the complaint and may make a financial award.

20. We hope this information helps Miss Y take her complaint forward and achieve the financial outcome she wants. As we consider there is a legal route available to her and it is reasonable for her to pursue this, we will not be taking any further action on her complaint.

21. We thank Miss Y for bringing her complaint to us.

1. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has carefully considered Miss Y’s complaint about University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). We consider she could take legal action on the matter she has brought to us.

2. We are very sorry to hear what happened to Miss Y and the significant impact this has had on her.