Barts Health NHS Trust

3. Mr R complains about the pain device inserted by Barts Health NHS Trust (the Trust) between August 2021 and 11 August 2023. Specifically, he complains the Trust:

• refused to fix a failed pain device • keep cancelling his surgery.

4. Mr R says the Trust’s ‘negligent’ actions have left him avoidable pain for over two years. Mr R also says it has caused him to lose control of his bladder and bowels, and this may not have happened had his pain device been fixed earlier.

5. Mr R wants a financial remedy.

7. 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 discussed this with Mr R to understand what he is complaining about, what the claimed impact on him was and what his desired outcomes are. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed but whether it would be a reasonable option to look into.

8. In general terms, clinical negligence takes place when a patient who underwent a treatment becomes injured as a result of that treatment. Failure to carry out appropriate treatment could also amount to negligence.

9. Mr R clearly referenced ‘negligence’ when speaking to us about the care he received at the Trust and feels the care he received was ‘negligent’. He says the Trust refused to fix his failed pain device and keep cancelling his surgeries. He says the Trust breached its duty of care owed towards him.

10. He says this caused him avoidable suffering and resulted in being in pain for over two years. He says the failings caused him to lose control of his bladder and bowels. Mr R told us he wants compensation up to £12,425. He told us he wants this for the impact the ‘negligent’ care had on him.

11. Mr R has a legal option available to him to achieve that compensation via a claim for clinical negligence. Based on what Mr R is complaining about he is making a possible claim of failure to carry out appropriate treatment which could amount to negligence. He would however need to take legal advice about this matter to establish this and if he could pursue this through the courts.

12. We asked Mr R if there were any reasons he could not explore the possibility of taking legal action and he told us there was none.

Conclusion

13. There is an alternative legal remedy available to Mr R. Having taken all the circumstances into account, we consider it is reasonable for him to explore the possibility of taking legal action to address his complaint to achieve the outcomes he wants. If, after exploring legal action he is unable to take this route, or if legal action does not achieve all of his desired outcomes, he can ask us to consider his case again. If he returns to us later he should do so without delay.

14. We understand this might not be the decision Mr R was hoping for and we are sorry for any further distress this may cause. We know the issues his pain device caused him are very difficult for him. We hope we have clearly explained why we have decided not to consider Mr R’s complaint any further.

1. We have carefully considered Mr R’s complaint about the care Barts Health NHS Trust (the Trust) provided to him. We are sorry to hear about the impact this had on him. We understand from what he has told he went through a very difficult and distressing time.

2. We have considered the circumstances of the complaint and what Mr R told us and have decided to take no further action at this time. This is because we think there is a legal route available for him to achieve the outcomes he wants. We are sorry for any additional distress this may cause and hope our explanations below show how we have fully considered his complaint.