A practice in the Bournemouth area

4. Ms F complains a doctor the vaccine clinic administered a second dose of Vaxzevria, rather than the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, on 7 July 2021. She feels the Practice did not do enough to ensure she received the right dose and did not take action after she received the wrong dose.

5. Ms F says the Practice had arranged for her to have the Pfizer vaccine as she suffered a ‘stroke’ after the first Vaxzevria dose. She says following the second dose, in August and September 2021, she experienced symptoms of a stroke and she remains seriously disabled.

6. She would like acknowledgement she received the wrong vaccine and compensation for the trauma, distress and impact it has had on her life.

7. More than one vaccine was used as part of COVID-19 vaccination programme. Some people received AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine, Vaxzevria. Following a discussion with the Practice, Ms F arranged for her second dose to be of the Pfizer vaccine.

8. When she attended the vaccination clinic, the doctor (who did not work for the Practice) inadvertently administered the AstraZeneca vaccine.

10. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there is an organisation that is better placed to deal with the concerns. Some complaints can be looked at by us, and also by other organisations. We have considered whether another organisation is better suited to giving an answer to the complaint and whether it can provide the outcome Ms F seeks.

11. Ms F has already made a claim under the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme, run by the NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA). This allows individuals who have suffered from severe disablement because of vaccination against certain diseases (including COVID-19) to apply for a one-off payment of £120,000 from the UK government.

12. The NHSBSA website explains what information its assessors use to consider whether the vaccine, on the balance of probabilities, caused the disability and whether the resulting disablement is severe. Ms F has not yet received the NHSBSA’s decision on her claim. We do not intend to look into her concerns in the meantime.

13. The complaint response Ms F received acknowledged she received a second dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine in error. It is likely the NHSBSA will determine whether the vaccine affected Ms F in the way she told us. It may also award her a significant financial payment. This means Ms F could achieve the outcomes she is seeking through that process.

14. Once Ms F has received the NHSBSA’s decision, she may decide to come back to us. If she does, we will carefully consider whether we should investigate her concerns.

15. We note financial remedy appears to be a key outcome for Ms F. 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.

16. We have discussed this with Ms F’s advocate 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.

17. Ms F believes the COVID-19 vaccine and the treatment she received following it had a negative impact on her health, leaving her ‘seriously disabled’. A court could potentially consider this and award a financial remedy.

18. We understand when Ms F tried to take legal action, she was told it would be difficult without confirmation of a link between the vaccine and her disablement. The NHSBSA’s decision may help her decide whether to explore this further. As there are time limits for making legal claims, it may be in her best interests to seek some free legal advice to confirm if taking legal action is an option.

19. We do not dispute how difficult Ms F’s experience was and we are sorry we are unable to assist her in the way she expected. We would like to wish her well and we hope this decision statement clearly explains our reasoning.

1. We have carefully considered Ms F’s complaint about the Practice. We were very sorry to hear how significantly her life changed after she had a stroke. We appreciate her concern that this is linked to the type of COVID-19 vaccines she was given.

2. Ms F has already submitted a claim to the NHS Business Services Authority, under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979. As she is awaiting its outcome, we have decided not to consider the complaint further.

3. We recognise this decision may be disappointing for Ms F. We hope this statement clearly explains the reasons for our decision.