The Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

4. Mr A complains about the care his mother had from the Trust in April 2020. He says: • Mrs G was wrongly placed on a COVID-19 ward when she was admitted • a Treatment Escalation Plan (TEP) was incorrectly completed which negatively affected the treatment Mrs G had • a faulty cannula placement meant vital intravenous fluids (given through the veins) and antibiotics did not correctly enter Mrs G’s body • a DNACPR (do not attempt cardio-pulmonary resuscitation) was put in place before Mrs G’s frailty was assessed and the family’s lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) was ignored • clinical staff did not correctly manage Mrs G’s diabetes and failed to give NovoRapid (insulin) in line with her treatment plan • a member of staff was not provided who could speak Mrs G’s language and help her calm down when she was distressed • doctors decided to stop treatment and put Mrs G on palliative (end of life) care despite her falling infection markers and 100% oxygen saturation levels (signs that her condition was not getting worse) • Mrs G was given an unknown injection just before her death and this may have directly contributed to her decline • clinical staff did not regularly update the family.

5. Mr A says the family are devastated by Mrs G’s death and their distress and anger is made worse by feeling that her death could have been avoided if staff had given effective care. Mr A would like the Trust to improve its service and make a financial payment to him.

6. Mrs G was brought by ambulance to the Trust’s emergency department (ED) on 6 April 2020. She was suffering from weakness, which was thought to be caused by an ongoing urinary tract infection (UTI).

7. Two days later Mrs G tested positive for COVID-19 and sadly died from complications associated with the virus later that month.

9. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has (or had) the option to take legal action, unless we consider it is (or was) unreasonable under the circumstances.

10. A person may make a clinical negligence claim and seek compensation if they believe poor care and treatment caused them an injury. This can also include psychiatric (emotional) injury.

11. Mr A says the emotional impact of what happened is at level six on our severity of injustice scale (a scale we use to consider the level of financial payment we would recommend if we uphold a complaint), but does not think £10,000, which is the amount we may typically award for such cases, is nearly enough to put right what went wrong.

12. He tells us compensation for workplace injury is much higher than this figure. He says because his complaint is about loss of life, which is much more serious, he should get a far higher amount than what we may typically award.

13. We understand Mr A has not yet spoken to a solicitor to see if they are willing to take on his complaint. We discussed this with Mr A and the outcomes he wants to better understand if legal action is the best route for him to take.

14. We recognise Mr A also wants service improvements. We appreciate service improvements are not something a clinical negligence case can normally achieve.

15. Our guidance says if someone wants a mix of outcomes, some of which they cannot achieve through legal action, we should still consider if it is appropriate for someone to take legal action. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed, only whether it would be a reasonable option to explore.

16. Mr A says his complaint clearly explains the ‘negligence and the wrong doing of the [Trust’s] medical team’ and he would like us to investigate, rather than taking legal action.

17. Legal action could result in the Trust accepting its mistakes (negligence) and awarding the financial payment Mr A wants.

18. We appreciate Mr A and his family have been through a traumatic experience and we do not wish to add to this. We must consider if we would be doing the wrong thing by investigating his complaint now. This is because the level of financial payment Mr A wants is more than we are likely to recommend.

19. It is clear Mr A feels he should be awarded a large sum to put right the emotional impact he and his family experienced. A court may be better placed to achieve the financial payment and acceptance of negligence that he wants.

20. We must also consider that it has now been some time since the events took place, so it is important for Mr A to get independent legal advice as soon as possible about what options are still open to him.

21. After careful consideration, we have decided it is reasonable for Mr A to get independent legal advice first. We think it is important for him to be fully aware of what legal action may be able to achieve for him.

22. Mr A could find a solicitor to handle his case on a ‘no-win-no-fee’ basis.

23. Mr A can come back to us if solicitors decline his complaint or if they ae unable to achieve all the outcomes he wants. If Mr A came back to us, we would need to carefully consider whether it was still appropriate for us to look into his complaint. We may also need to review any correspondence he received from solicitors.

24. It is also important to stress that if Mr A wants to come back to us, he must do so without delay. Should Mr A delay in coming back to us, it may mean we cannot consider his complaint.

1. We have carefully considered Mr A’s complaint about the Trust. We are sorry to hear about his concerns about the care his mother, Mrs G, had before she died.

2. We have decided it is reasonable for Mr A to get independent legal advice on his complaint. This means we cannot consider his complaint further at this stage.

3. We recognise how deeply Mr A and his family has been affected by Mrs G’s death and we do not underestimate how difficult it has been for them. Although we are unable to look into Mr A’s concerns further, we hope this statement clearly explains the reasons for our decision and why legal action is better suited to getting the financial outcome Mr A wants.