NHS in England Closed After Initial Enquiries Search on PHSO website

South East London Integrated Care Board

P-003046 · Statement · Decision date: 28 October 2024 · View NHS South East London ICB scorecard
Complaint (AI summary)
Miss R complained the ICB failed to diagnose her with ADHD in 2006. This caused difficulties at school, mental struggles, and significant debt from university due to a lack of support.
Outcome (AI summary)
Closed. The ombudsman decided the specific outcomes Miss R sought, including a meeting with doctors and a financial remedy, could not be achieved through their process.

Full decision details

The Complaint

3. Miss R complains the ICB failed to diagnosis her with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in 2006.

4. Miss R explains the ICB’s failure to diagnose her meant: • she had difficulties at school throughout her child and teenage years • she struggled mentally with feeling stupid in comparison to her peers • she is in £9,250 of debt due to failing her first year of university as she had no support.

5. To resolve the complaint Miss R would like a meeting with the doctors who treated her, and for the doctors and the ICB to take responsibility for her missed diagnosis. She would also like the ICB to ensure the doctors involved in her care no longer work with children. Miss R would like financial remedy of £9,250.

Background

6. Miss R was first considered for a for an ADHD diagnosis in 2006. The clinicians did not diagnosis with Miss R with ADHD at this time.

7. Miss R was diagnosis with ADHD as an adult in 2022, by adult ADHD services.

Findings

Missed diagnosis of ADHD

9. Before we decide if we should consider a complaint further, we look at what the complainant wants to achieve by bringing the complaint to us. We consider whether the outcome is achievable for us. If we cannot achieve the outcome, we may decide not to consider the complaint further.

10. We talked to Miss R and the outcomes she would like to achieve. She told us she would like a meeting with the doctors who treated her, and for the doctors and the ICB to take responsibility for her missed diagnosis. She would also like the ICB to ensure the doctors involved in her care no longer work with children. Miss R would also like financial remedy of £9,250.

11. We have explained to Miss R the doctors who treated her, and who she has complained about have retired and are no longer registered as practicing medicine. We have checked the medical register to confirm this. We therefore could not request the ICB arrange a meeting with her as an outcome of the complaint. We also could not ask the ICB to ensure the doctors no longer work with children.

12. Miss R has asked that the doctors involved in her care and the ICB take responsibility for the missed diagnosis. If we investigated this complaint and found failings, it is possible we could recommend the ICB acknowledge it failed to diagnose Miss R. We do not think this outcome alone is sufficient to remedy the complaint for Miss R as she has asked for the specific clinicians involved to take responsibility that they should have diagnosed her.

13. Miss R has told us as part of our work she would like to know why the specific clinicians did not diagnose her. As part of our consideration, we also look to see if an investigation would be practical. In this case we do not think we could find out why the clinicians did not diagnose Miss P. This is due to the time that has passed since her initial ADHD diagnosis. We do not find we would be able to resolve the complaint for Miss R.

14. Miss R has also told us she is looking for a financial remedy as an outcome of her complaint. The amount of money Miss R is seeking to remedy her complaint is more than what we would usually recommend in a case like this. We therefore do not find we could achieve the outcomes Miss R seeks.

15. We acknowledge the events leading to Miss R’s complaint are extremely difficult. She has told us how she struggled in education from childhood through to adulthood and the impact this had on her self-worth. We are sorry to hear what she has been through and recognise how she has suffered. For the reasons outlined above we do not consider we could investigate Miss R’s complaint further and we will not be taking further action.

Our Decision

1. We have carefully considered Miss R’s complaint about the South East London Integrated Care Board (the ICB). We have decided the outcomes Miss R is looking for are not something we could achieve.

2. We acknowledge the events that led Miss R to make her complaint are extremely difficult. She has shared with us the impact the actions of the ICB have had on her. We are sorry to hear what she has been through. We have decided we would not be able to achieve the outcomes Miss R is looking for or the outcome would not be sufficient to remedy Miss R’s complaint.

Other Decisions About South East London Integrated Care Board

P-004595 · 9 Jan 2026
Mr I complains, on behalf of his mother Mrs I, about the ICB. He complains the ICB incorrectly returned a …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-003545 · 7 May 2025
Ms A complains the ICB declined her appeal for appropriate outpatient mental health therapy in March 2022 as it said …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-003438 · 28 Mar 2025
Ms K complains about the policy implemented by South East London ICB, previously Bromley CCG between 2017 and 2022. She …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-001708 · 31 Jan 2023
Mr O complains the ICB refused to agree to prescribe fentanyl lozenges to help him manage his ongoing back pain.
Closed After Initial Enquiries
View all decisions for this organisation →