Treatment the Trust provided between 11 October and 24 December 2021
20. The law says a person needs to make their complaint to us within a year of becoming aware of the problem. We cannot investigate complaints brought to us after one year, unless we consider there is a good reason to do so. We have discussed this with Mrs O to understand the reasons why she did not complain to us sooner. We have also considered the time the Trust has taken to respond to Mrs O’s complaint.
21. Mrs O tells us she knew about the failings in the treatment when a new consultant glaucoma surgeon took over her care on 24 December 2021. Following this appointment, the consultant raised concerns about the treatment the Trust had provided between 2017 and 2021.
22. Considering Mrs O knew of the issues she complains about on 24 December 2021, she needed to complain to us by 24 December 2022.
23. We have considered the reasons for the delays and the time it took for the Trust to complete its investigations of the concerns.
24. The Trust reviewed its care of Mrs O and provided a response to her on 22 June 2022 which said the panel considered the Trust had managed her care adequately.
25. The Trust then wrote to her on 12 July 2022. It said although her concerns had not been managed through the NHS complaints process, the Trust’s findings of the incident investigation would have had the same outcome. It explained our role, advised Mrs O that she could contact us, and included our contact details.
26. Mrs O first contacted us about these issues in February 2024 and her complaint was ready for us to consider in June 2024.
27. Mrs O says she did not complain to us earlier because the new consultant provided good care to her following the Trust’s review. She said she did not know what else to do and was still under the Trust’s care. She said it was only when the Trust replied to her in November 2023 about a second issue, that she decided to complain to us.
28. We have taken into account the time the Trust took to investigate the consultant’s concerns and provide Mrs O with a response. Whilst we understand this was a difficult period for Mrs O, we do not consider this is a good enough reason to delay her complaint for 19 months after the Trust had told her how to contact us.
29. For this reason, we cannot look at this part of her complaint further.
Appointment on 14 October 2022 and follow up treatment
30. 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 have discussed this with Mrs O 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.
31. Clinical negligence is when avoidable mistakes cause harm to the patient. In this case, Mrs O complains she attended an appointment on 14 October 2022 and a consultant dilated her eyes with eye drops even though she told them this had previously caused problems. She says the consultant did not listen to her concerns and continued with the treatment.
32. She says she called the department the next day, explaining there was an issue with her eyes. She says staff told her the doctor would not see her until her next scheduled appointment on 25 October. Mrs O says because of the pupil dilation and refusal to see her sooner, the pressure in her eyes increased which damaged them. She says it caused the sight in her right eye to get worse and caused worse glare/blurriness in both eyes. We are sorry to hear the treatment affected her in this way.
33. When we initially spoke with Mrs O on 19 September 2024, she told us she is seeking a financial remedy and wants the Trust to pay her several hundred thousand pounds in compensation. We discussed this with her further and she said she wants at least £70,000 as she will have to go in a care home because of the failings and needs to fund this.
34. When we spoke with her on 9 October 2024, we explained we cannot consider the first part of her complaint or the impact of this as it is outside of our time limits (as we explain in paragraphs 19 to 21).
35. In this call, we asked her how much she is seeking in relation to the impact of this second part of her complaint (in relation to the appointment on14 October 2022). Having looked at ‘Our guide to financial remedy’ she said she wants the Trust to pay her much more than £12,500 to resolve her complaint.
36. We consider the amount sought is substantial. It is unlikely that pursuing legal action would cost more or take up a disproportionate amount of any remedy if Mrs O was successful. A successful negligence claim could also potentially award compensation for any future necessary treatment or care costs.
37. It is not our role to advise whether someone has a claim, or the merits of a potential claim. When a person seeks substantial financial remedy (as in this case) we consider they should seek legal advice as to whether they may have a legal route open to them.
38. There are a few reasons for this: • Strict time limits apply to legal claims, so it is not advisable for someone to follow the complaints route first without seeking advice if they think they have a claim or seek a large sum.
• If we were to find failings, we may not recommend a financial remedy at the level sought. A legal route may reach a higher figure.
• Our recommendations are not enforceable in the way compensation is via a legal route. If there are failings the complainant will be more likely to obtain the remedy via a legal route.
39. In our conversation with Mrs O on 9 October, we asked if there are any barriers to her making a legal claim. She said she has difficulty writing letters because of her sight problems but agreed she has written letters to us and could get help with this. She said she feels too old to make a legal claim, it would take too long, and she does not want to go through a solicitor. She said if she was in the same physical condition as she is now but was younger, she would pursue a claim through the courts.
40. We have considered if it is reasonable to expect Mrs O to pursue a legal route. We are satisfied an alternative legal remedy is available to her and she can explore this with legal firms. If Mrs O needs assistance with this process, a law firm dealing with the claim or an advocacy service may be able to help her. We have provided some contact details to her which may be helpful.
41. We explained to Mrs O that if she does return to us, she should do so as soon as possible. This is because, as we explain in paragraph 12, by law, we can usually only consider complaints made within 12 months of a person becoming aware of the events complained about.
42. For the reasons we have outlined, we will not be taking any further action on her complaint at this time. We thank her for taking the time to discuss her complaint with us and we hope we have explained our decision clearly.