18. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the events complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right. Having considered this, we have seen the Trust has already done enough to put right the impact of these events.
19. Mr L told us he was concerned he had cancer as he was referred down the two-week cancer pathway. As he had not received his test results, it caused him distress as he did not know whether he had untreated cancer.
20. In its first response to Mr L’s complaint, the Trust apologised for Mr L’s experience and acknowledged not knowing his test results caused him frustration and anxiety. It advised Mr L the appointment booked for January 2024 was an administrative error and confirmed his appointment had already been brought forward by the Trust to 8 September 2023.
21. The Trust went onto explain it is best practice to see patients in clinic to explain test results rather than just send clinical reports in the post. It said the Trust was experiencing capacity issues due to the impact of the pandemic which caused a significant backlog. The Trust explained it has since increased capacity, but this has not yet enabled them to return to optimal waiting times.
22. The Trust told Mr L they had reiterated to the administrative team they must escalate appointments such as his to a senior manager if the next appointment slot available is well over that clinically required.
23. On 8 September 2023, however, the Trust cancelled Mr L’s follow up appointment due to the clinic being overbooked. The Trust rebooked this appointment on 8 December 2023, which resulted in further delays. Unfortunately, Mr L was unable to attend this appointment due to personal circumstances. Mr L told us he has still not received his test results.
24. We understand the distress which this caused to Mr L, and we are sorry for the experience which he had.
25. In its final response to Mr L on 6 December 2023, the Trust acknowledged Mr L had not received his test results and apologised for the anxiety which this caused. The Trust did point out it sent a letter to both Mr L and his GP on 26 April 2023, which confirmed Mr L did not have cancer and as a result the Trust had removed him from the upper GI cancer pathway. This letter confirmed Mr L’s gastroscopy was normal apart from his known diverticulum.
26. The Trust also said in its letter in a clinic on 17 March 2023 it discussed with Mr L that his risk of bowel cancer was low and nothing of concern was found during a physical examination.
27. In this final response, the Trust confirmed they had found nothing of concern in Mr L’s CT colonoscopy and video capsule endoscopy.
28. Our NHS complaint standards say organisations should give fair and accountable responses to complaints. This means openly identifying when things have gone wrong, or where services have had an unfair impact on people. Our NHS complaint standards say organisations should offer a range of ways to put things right for people, including meaningful and sincere apologies and taking learning from complaints to continuously improve services.
29. Having reviewed all the evidence, we consider the Trust has acted in line with the NHS complaint standards. The Trust has acknowledged and apologised for the delays with Mr L’s appointment and the delays with him receiving his test results.
30. It has also addressed the administration department with regards to appointments being escalated when required. This shows the Trust has learned from the complaint and has taken appropriate action to improve services. This should prevent this from happening again.
31. We also consider the letter which was sent to Mr L after the clinic on 26 April 2023 provided Mr L some reassurance that he did not have upper GI cancer and his symptoms were likely due to his diverticular disease. However, we do recognise not receiving test results in this situation would provide some level of distress.
32. Mr L told us he would like financial remedy for the distress caused. Our guidance on financial remedy explains when we would decide a financial payment is appropriate to put things right. It says we would not think a payment is appropriate for cases at level one on our severity of injustice scale.
33. Our guidance explains when we would consider a case to be level one. It says that is when the person has experienced a low impact injustice and where the effect on the person complaining is of short duration and where there are no other adverse effects or ongoing wider impact.
34. We do not consider financial remedy is appropriate in this case. Mr L tells us the experience he had with the Trust has been distressing and we are sorry for how it has made him feel. Having thought about this carefully, we think the impact from what happened does not exceed level one of our severity of injustice scale. Therefore we will not be considering financial remedy any further.
35. Based on what we have explained here, we have decided the Trust has acted in line with our NHS Complaints Standards and guidance on financial remedy to put things right and improve. We will not consider this complaint further.
36. We recognise Mr L’s complaint is important to him. We are grateful to him for bringing it to us. We hope our explanations provide some reassurance to him the Trust has put things right, including steps to improve in future.