A practice in the Cannock Chase area

The Practice

3. Mr U explained the Practice called an ambulance for his father when he attended a routine appointment on 31 January 2024. The wait time was four hours, and Mr U complains the Practice did not keep him there and instead suggested his father return home and ask a family member to take him to the ED.

4. He says had the Practice kept his father there, then a defibrillator would have been on hand when his heart attack started, and he may not have passed away.

The Trust

5. Mr U complains the Trust did not respond to the Practice’s call properly and should have arranged for an ambulance to come sooner.

6. Mr U says when his neighbour brought his father home from the GP the same day, they called for an ambulance as Mr U (senior) showed symptoms of a heart attack. He complains the Trust advised there were no ambulances available, suggesting they bring his father directly to the ED.

7. His father passed away whilst being moved from the house to the car to go to the ED a few moments after the call. Mr U does not think the first call was triaged properly as it was not treated as a priority.

8. Because of the death of his father, Mr U explains the family has been affected by the loss of a much-loved family member. He says he has needed to leave work, and he has needed to take medication to aid sleep.

9. Mr U has asked that both organisations learn from this to prevent this happening to anyone else. He is also seeking a financial remedy.

10. Mr U (senior) was known to have angina.

11. When he attended his GP for a routine appointment on 31 January, he was unwell. The GP called for an ambulance, and was told there would be a wait of up to four hours.

12. The Practice suggested he return home and, as the neighbour who had brought him to the Practice could not take him to the hospital, arrange for a relative to do this.

13. Once home his condition had worsened, and the neighbour called again for an ambulance. This was an hour after the GP’s call.

14. An ambulance was not dispatched with Mr U being asked to transport his father to the hospital.

15. Upon Mr U trying to move his father from a wheelchair to the car, he sadly died of a heart attack.

18. The Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 (section 4) says we cannot investigate a complaint if there is a legal remedy the aggrieved could pursue unless it is not reasonable for them to do so.

19. We have discussed this with Mr U to understand his circumstances and the outcomes he wants. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed, but whether it would be a reasonable option to pursue.

Is a legal route available?

20. To bring legal action through a clinical negligence claim, a person must have experienced a failing in clinical care resulting in physical or psychological injury.

21. Mr U says the Practice had a duty of care to keep his father at the premises whilst waiting for the ambulance to be near a defibrillator should his condition worsen. It did not do this, sending him home with a neighbour to arrange for a family member to take him to the ED.

22. In respect of the Trust, Mr U says it did not categorise his father appropriately during either the call from the Practice, or the subsequent call from the neighbour. He feels his father’s death would have been prevented if it had sent an ambulance. When we discussed the complaint with him, he explained he felt both organisations had been negligent in the way they treated his father.

23. Considering the issues Mr U has raised, and as he is seeking financial remedy, we consider he may have cause of action. He could pursue a clinical negligence claim against both the Practice and the Trust, which could result in a financial award. a

24. Mr U has also asked that both organisations learn from this incident, preventing this from happening to anyone else. This is not an outcome a court would directly order. However, this is likely to be a by-product of successful legal action.

25. This is because the organisations are likely to review their processes to prevent reoccurrences.

Is the legal route reasonable to pursue?

26. Mr U is looking for financial compensation recognition of the emotional impact on him and his family. He did not initially know how much money he was seeking so we sent him our ‘Severity of injustice scale.’ This sets out the amounts we may potentially recommend in different cases.

27. Mr U reviewed this and explained money was not his primary concern but felt his case could be up to level 5 on our scale. This includes financial remedy of up to £12,450. This indicates he may be seeking a significant amount of money.

28. We asked Mr U whether there are any barriers to him seeking legal action. He explained he had chosen to come to our service as he feels the legal route would be more stressful. He did not give any other reasons he could not pursue this route.

29. It is important to note that our process is not guaranteed to be stress free. Often taking legal action will involve having a dedicated legal representative to act on your behalf which can reduce the stress of the process. As such, we do not feel this shows he is unable to pursue legal action.

30. Considering the seriousness of the failings and impact Mr U has told us about, it is important he has the best opportunity to achieve the financial remedy he is seeking. The courts can potentially recommend higher amounts than we can.

31. After discussing the this with Mr U, he said he was willing to pursue the legal route.

32. As such, we consider it is reasonable for Mr U to pursue his claim through the courts. We have explained that if he is unable to find a solicitor to act on his behalf, he can return to our service. We can also consider the case if there are any outstanding outcomes which have not been achieved through the legal proves.

33. We ask Mr U to consider our time limit as the law requires him to bring the complaint to us within a year of becoming aware of it. If there are strong reasons to do so, we may set the time limit aside. Reasons may include our decision to close the complaint now, provided he takes prompt action to pursue the legal route.

34. We realise this has been a very sad and stressful time for Mr U and his family and hope they are able to reach a speedy conclusion.

1. We have carefully considered Mr U’s complaint about West Midlands Ambulance Service University NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) and a practice in the Cannock area (the Practice). We are very sorry to hear of the death of his father and the impact this has had on him and his family.

2. We consider Mr U could take legal action on the matter he has brought to us. As such, we have decided to take no further action on the complaint.