Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust

3. Prof G complains there was a lack of face-to-face consultations, staff failed to do all the necessary tests and misinterpreted tests that were done and the Trust did not do anything about Mrs J’s worsening symptoms.

4. Prof G believes earlier diagnosis and intervention would have made a big difference to Mrs J’s long-term prognosis. She says the failure to diagnose her condition quickly led to Mrs J experiencing several years of debilitating illness and meant her condition could not be treated by the time another hospital diagnosed myeloma (a type of bone marrow cancer) and amyloidosis (when protein builds up in the body and affects the organs). This caused the family great distress.

5. Prof G would like the Trust to accept and apologise for its failings. She would like the Trust to take action to stop someone else having a similar experience. Prof G also wants a financial payment.

6. In March 2020, Mrs J’s GP referred her to the Trust’s haematology assessment service (specialising in diseases of the blood), for suspected myeloma. Mrs J had a phone appointment on 7 April and a follow-up appointment in person on 16 April. Staff told Mrs J they would monitor her for possible myeloma development and blood tests would be done every three months.

7. Mrs J had phone consultations on 25 June, 1 October 2020 and 21 January 2021. She was told that based on blood test results, she did not need any treatment. Blood tests would be done every six months.

8. Mrs J had more phone consultations in 2021 and 2022 and staff said that based on her blood test results, she did not need any treatment.

9. Mrs J had been experiencing increasing breathlessness and mobility problems. On 31 March 2022, she collapsed at home and was taken by ambulance to another hospital’s emergency department. Doctors there diagnosed atrial fibrillation (irregular heartbeat) and discharged her on 2 April. A follow-up MRI scan (a scan used to show detailed pictures of the inside of the body) on 29 April showed multiple myeloma and amyloidosis. Haematologists reviewed Mrs J. She had several rounds of chemotherapy (cancer treatment to kill cancer cells) from October to December 2022. The amyloidosis had caused damage to her heart that could not be repaired, leading to heart failure. Sadly, Mrs J died in June 2023.

11. Before we can look into the concerns someone has raised, we have to check the tests set out in the law.

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 (or was) unreasonable in the circumstances. We have discussed this with Prof G 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 in to.

13. Prof G’s main concerns relate to the care and treatment her mother had. Prof G believes shortcomings in the Trust’s care led to her mother’s death. This suggests she could consider making a clinical negligence claim.

14. We gave Prof G information about our approach to recommending financial payment, including our ‘severity of injustice scale’. Our scale sets out the amounts we typically recommend.

15. Prof G told us she might consider taking legal action later, after our investigation. We asked Prof G for information about anything stopping her from taking legal action now. Prof G was unsure about the cost of legal action. We shared resources with Prof G that might help her find free legal advice. We noted she might also find a ‘no win, no fee’ legal firm willing to take her case on in a way she can afford.

16. Unfortunately, if someone wants to make a legal claim, we cannot help them with this. As we said above, we cannot get involved when there is a legal route available and it is a reasonable route to look in to. The evidence suggests Prof G has a legal route available.

17. We think it is in Prof G’s best interests to consider getting legal advice at this time. Legal action can sometimes achieve other outcomes as a by-product of any decision that is made. This could include the service improvements Prof G wants.

18. Taking all of this into account, legal action seems to be a reasonable option for Prof G to explore. This is why we are not taking the complaint further.

19. If Prof G is unable to take legal action or the court does not look at all the outcomes she wants, she can bring her complaint back to us. If that happens, we will need to consider our time limit, so it is important she returns to us as quickly as possible.

20. We recognise how difficult Prof G and her family’s experience was and we are sorry we are unable to help her in the way she expected. We hope this decision statement clearly explains our reasoning.

1. We have carefully considered Prof G’s complaint about Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust (the Trust). We are sorry to hear about her concerns with the care the Trust gave to her late mother, Mrs J.

2. We think Prof G could take legal action to achieve the outcome she wants. This is why we have decided not to consider her complaint further.