Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust

4. Mr K complains that in 2015 the Trust did vitrectomy surgery (a procedure to remove fluid from the eye) on his right eye that led to him losing his vision. Mr K also complains that after surgery to treat cataracts (clouding of the eye lens) in his left eye in January 2020, his vision got worse and he could not see. He says he lost sight in both eyes because of the Trust’s surgery.

5. Mr K says he is now blind, cannot work or do everyday tasks and needs daily care at home. He says this has affected his quality of life and led to anxiety and depression.

6. Mr K would like corrective surgery, an apology from the Trust and a financial payment to cover his inability to work.

7. The Trust had looked after Mr K’s eyesight for a number of years.

8. In 2013, Mr K developed uncontrolled high blood pressure which led to a blood clot and retinal detachment (when the thin layer at the back of your eye becomes loose) in the right eye.

9. In 2014, The Trust saw Mr K for ongoing glaucoma treatment (eye nerve damage). He was told he had developed advanced glaucoma at an early age.

10. In 2015, the Trust did the vitrectomy procedure to try to treat this. Treatment included eye drops and laser treatment.

11. In January 2020, Mr K had cataract surgery on his left eye. By February his vision in his right eye had become blurry and his sight got worse.

13. 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 think there is a good reason to. We have discussed this with Mr K to understand the reasons why he did not bring us his complaint sooner. We have also considered the time the Trust took to respond to his complaint.

When Mr K was aware of his complaint

14. The vitrectomy procedure was some time in 2015. Mr K tells us he was aware of the change to his vision straight after the procedure. This would mean he knew he had reason to complain by the end of 2015 at the latest and he needed to bring us the complaint by the end of 2016 to meet our time limit.

15. Mr K brought this complaint to us in January 2023, six years outside of our time limit. The complaint about Mr K’s left eye cataract surgery in January 2020 was also brought to us outside of our time limit.

16. Mr K tells us that by February 2020 his vision had completely deteriorated and he realised straight after surgery that there were issues with his eyesight. Based on this Mr K knew he had reason to complain about this in January 2020 and so he needed to bring his complaint to us by January 2021.

17. Mr K brought this complaint to us in January 2023, two years outside of our time limit.

Time taken by the Trust’s complaints process and our process

18. Mr K did not complain to the Trust until December 2021. He got a final response from the Trust in January 2022. The Trust had a complaints meeting in May 2022. This means the Trust was handling the complaint for around five months.

19. This shows that the Trust responded to the complaint proactively and within the timescales we would expect to see. The Trust’s complaint handling did not stop Mr K from coming to us on time and is not a reason for us to put the time limit to one side.

20. Mr K first complained to us in June 2022 but we closed the complaint in November because we decided it was reasonable for Mr K to first get legal advice. Mr K did this and came back to us in January 2023.

21. Mr K did act quickly after we closed his complaint. We recognise he was not responsible for the time it took us to look at his complaint from June to November 2022. We have taken this into account when making our decision.

Mr K’s explanations for the delays

22. We spoke to Mr K to understand why he did not make his complaint sooner and he asked us to deal with his representative. They explained he had put his faith in the Trust’s eye department and he wanted to believe they could make his eyesight better, so he did not complain.

23. The Trust confirmed that Mr K first approached its Patient Advice and Liaison (PALS) team by phone in October 2021.

24. The representative also explained there were delays while Mr K was exploring the legal route which explains the time between November 2022 and January 2023.

25. The representative said that Mr K mentioned he delayed making a complaint as his eyesight had deteriorated and he did not know how to make a formal complaint. They also told us there was a time when Mr K was not getting support and could not read letters from the Trust.

26. The representative also told us there were times when they were not able to help Mr K quickly because of their busy schedule. They also explained Mr K had complained to the Trust verbally during his ongoing treatment.

27. They explained Mr K had only recently been directed to advocacy support and his eyesight rapidly deteriorating led to him feeling depressed.

28. We can appreciate how hard it must have been for Mr K when he could not read letters from the Trust and he did not have support.

29. We understand that going through the formal complaints process has been more difficult for Mr K and it has been hard to get in touch with appropriate organisations to support him in this process.

30. But there was a two-year delay in making a formal complaint to the Trust about the cataract surgery issue. There was a nearly a six-year delay with making the complaint to the Trust about the surgery in 2015. These are long delays.

31. It seems the issues with getting support happened while the Trust was handling the complaint, as this was when Mr K could not read the letters.

32. We have to think about how Mr K did not take action on his complaints until six years and two years after he knew there was a problem.

33. We have thought about the circumstances and explanations very carefully. Overall, we think it would have been reasonable for Mr K to have got in touch with PALS and advocacy services sooner, so he could make his complaint.

34. We appreciate he did not have details of advocacy services straight away but, from what we have seen, PALS gave him details right after he contacted them.

35. We recognise Mr K’s decision not to complain at first. We also recognise he might then have needed extra time, especially if he did not have details for advocacy services straight away. But it is clear he was aware of problems a long time before he took them to PALS.

36. By not complaining at the time, he seemed to make a choice and this makes it difficult for us to say he could not have complained sooner. In these circumstances it is difficult to put our time limit to one side.

37. We understand it must have been a difficult time for Mr K as he adjusting to losing his sight.

38. We have not seen strong reasons to put our time limit to one side and will not be investigating the complaint further.

1. We have carefully considered Mr K’s complaint about Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust (the Trust). We are sorry to learn about what happened and how Mr K has been affected.

2. We cannot investigate this complaint because it was brought to us outside of our one-year time limit and we have not seen a strong reason to put the time limit to one side.

3. We recognise this is not the decision Mr K hoped for. We explain our decision in full below.