University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust

3. Ms S complains about aspects of care and treatment her son received from the Trust when it admitted Mr N to hospital as an inpatient in January 2023 with unexplained neurological symptoms.

4. Specifically, Ms S says the Trust: • did not provide Mr N with a diagnosis • prolonged his suffering due to a weekly changeover of consultants, and inconsistent care • unnecessarily withdrew treatment • discharged Mr N under the care of Child and Adult Mental Health Services CAMHS, with no ongoing treatment plan • treated Mr N as an adult, and nursed him on an adult neurology ward • inappropriately used the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

5. Ms S explained these issues led to Mr N being treated by an adult neurologist, who were less familiar with the presentation of autoimmune encephalitis (a type of brain inflammation) in children. She further said that as a result, Mr N did not receive the correct and treatment. Ms S told us Mr N has not recovered from his initial illness and still does not have an effective treatment plan.

6. Ms S also explained that Mr N may have long lasting permanent brain damage, which may have been avoided if the Trust had provided him with the correct treatment.

7. Ms S said the family have spent their life savings on private treatment for Mr N. She further said she and Mr N’s father are now contemplating a future as long term carers for him.

8. She is looking for an effective treatment plan for Mr N, an apology, service improvements and financial remedy for the costs already incurred and for loss of earnings.

11. 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 do not consider whether legal action would succeed but whether it would be a reasonable option to look in to.

12. Ms S told us as a result of the Trust not providing Mr N with a diagnosis and the issues with providing him with care and treatment led to the Trust providing an adult neurologist to treat Mr N, who was less familiar with the presentation of autoimmune encephalitis. She further said that as a result of the issues she set out in her complaint, Mr N did not receive the correct and treatment. She is concerned the Trust discharged Mr N without a treatment plan and explained he has not recovered from his initial illness and still does not have an effective treatment plan.

13. The Trust said it detained Mr N under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Ms S said the Trust told her he was subject to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This is a legal procedure to protect people who lack capacity and are deprived of their liberty in hospitals or care homes. Ms S complains DoLS does not apply to under 18’s. Mr N was 17 at the time of his admission to hospital. As a result of this, Ms S believes Mr N did not receive the correct clinical care he needed. She believes this was because the Trust treated him as an adult, on an adult ward.

14. Ms S also explained that Mr N may have long lasting, permanent brain damage, which may have been avoided if the Trust had provided the correct treatment. Ms S said that Mr N now has a very uncertain future as the outcome has been life changing.

15. It is possible that Ms S could make claim on Mr N’s behalf for clinical negligence. Clinical negligence is something that people can take to court.

16. Ms S said the family have spent their life savings on private treatment for Mr N. She said this is over £30,000.

17. While Ms S has told us financial redress is not the family’s primary concern, she explained she and Mr N’s father are now contemplating a future as his long term carers. She is therefore looking for a significant sum.

18. On this basis, it could be possible a legal claim could achieve more compensation for Ms S that we could, if we were to uphold her complaint. A legal claim can also consider possible future costs, which we cannot.

19. Ms S is looking for several other outcomes as a result of making her complaint. She is looking for an effective treatment plan for Mr N, an apology, service improvements and financial remedy for the costs already incurred and for loss of earnings. If we were to uphold this complaint, we would not be able to recommend the Trust to provide a treatment plan as an outcome to our investigation. This is because we are independent of the NHS.

20. Ms S is also looking for an apology and service improvements. While legal action cannot direct these, it is possible Ms S could achieve these as secondary outcomes.

21. In terms of barriers to pursuing a legal claim, Ms S has told us she has already spent all her savings on care and treatment for Mr N. We have explained the other ways to fund a legal claim, including no win no fee options and the possibility of using legal protection on an insurance policy. Ms S told us she has already spoken to a solicitor about her complaint. We can see no barriers to Ms S pursuing a legal claim.

22. For these reasons, it is reasonable for Ms S to continue to pursue an alternative legal route.

23. We recognise how difficult it can be to make a complaint. We would like to thank Ms S for bringing her concerns to us.

1. We have carefully considered Ms S’ complaint about University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust (the Trust). We were sorry to hear about the concerns she has about the care and treatment her son, Mr N, received from the Trust. We recognise the ongoing impact this is having on Mr N and the whole family. We wish Mr N well.

2. We have considered all of the information provided and we conclude that Ms S and Mr N may be able to take legal action on the matters Ms S has brought to us.