University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust

3. Mr Y complains about the following aspects of care the Trust provided to Mr N during a hospital admission between 12 August and 8 September 2021:

• on 12 August, his father’s consultant failed to diagnose his dislocated jaw, instead saying it was a symptom of deep dementia • the consultant did not examine his father, arrange for an oral surgeon to examine him, or request a CT scan • the consultant refused to refer his father to a private hospital for an X-ray • during this time, the Trust did not provide his father with adequate fluid and nutrition • when he complained to the Trust at the time of the events, it failed to take action.

4. Mr Y says that because of the Trust’s actions, his father’s jaw dislocation was not diagnosed until 31 August. He says during the period it was undiagnosed, his father did not receive adequate nutrition, his physical condition declined rapidly, and he endured great pain. He says ultimately this led to his death on 8 September.

5. As an outcome to the complaint, he would like the Trust to admit its mistakes and apologise. He would also like a financial remedy.

6. Mr N was admitted to hospital on 24 June 2021 with a broken right arm. On 12 August, Mr N’s family noticed he was unable to close his mouth. Mr Y raised concerns about this with the Trust’s Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS) in emails he sent on 19 and 30 August.

7. The Trust diagnosed Mr N with a dislocated jaw on 31 August. He sadly died in hospital on 8 September. Following this, PALS closed Mr Y’s complaint on 16 September as it considered the doctors and nurses caring for Mr N had dealt with it on the ward.

8. Mr Y made a complaint to the Trust about the events on 15 March 2022 and the Trust responded on 8 August. Mr Y sent a further email to the Trust on 27 September, receiving a response on 14 November in which the Trust directed him to the Ombudsman. Mr Y then referred his complaint to us on 11 March 2024.

11. 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 discussed this with Mr Y to understand the reasons for the delays. We also considered the time the Trust has taken to respond to Mr Y

12. Mr Y became aware of the issues in his father’s care between August and early September 2021. To meet our time limit for this complaint, Mr Y needed to bring his complaint to us by September 2022. Mr Y brought his complaint to us in March 2024, meaning his complaint reached us one year and six months outside our time limit.

13. Mr Y first raised concerns with PALS whilst his father was still in hospital. It appears PALS dealt with this complaint informally by asking the doctors and nurses caring for Mr N to address the concerns. The Trust wrote to Mr Y on 16 September 2021 advising it had closed his complaint but to contact it again if he needed further assistance.

14. Following this, Mr Y raised a formal complaint with the Trust on 15 March 2022, six months after the Trust’s previous letter. The Trust’s complaint’s policy says complainants should raise concerns with the Trust within 12 months of becoming aware of any issues and so we have no concerns about this delay.

15. The Trust sent its complaint response on 8 August. This was almost four months beyond the initial target the Trust set for itself to complete its investigation. The Trust explained at the time this was because of pressures it was facing due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

16. Mr Y raised a further complaint with the Trust on 27 September. The Trust responded to Mr Y in a timely way on 14 November. The Trust advised Mr Y if he remained dissatisfied, he could approach the Ombudsman to review his complaint.

17. Mr Y then sent his complaint to us on 11 March 2024, which was a year and four months after the Trust’s response. We asked Mr Y the reasons for this delay.

18. Mr Y advised us the entire family had several COVID-19 infections which they had to recover from. He advised the first infection in the family was around winter 2021 and they then suffered multiple infections from around spring 2022. He said the most severe case was when they had to call an ambulance for his child on 1 November.

19. We were very sorry to hear of this and understand this must have been a difficult time for the family. The dates Mr Y advised his family had COVID-19 do not account for the delay in Mr Y bringing his complaint to us between 14 November 2022 and 11 March 2024. As such, we cannot put our time limit to one side for this reason.

20. Mr Y advised us another reason for the delay was because he had to obtain Mr N’s medical records. The Trust confirmed Mr Y requested the medical records on 23 September 2021 and it sent these to him on 21 October. Again, this does not account for any of the delay in Mr Y referring his complaint to us.

21. Mr Y also advised us that although the Trust directed him to us, it did not mention our time limit. He explained that if he had known about it, he would have contacted us sooner. Mr Y is correct in saying the Trust did not mention our time limit in either of its letters. Ideally, we agree the Trust should have done this.

22. Despite the Trust not doing so, our view is Mr Y still had some responsibility for finding out the next step of the complaints process without undue delay. There is no evidence Mr Y contacted us or the Trust to check how long he had to refer his complaint to us. We would have expected Mr Y make some attempts to do this.

23. We acknowledge there was a four-month delay caused by the Trust handling the complaint initially. However, Mr Y’s complaint would still have been a year outside our time limit even if this delay had not occurred.

24. In summary, the main reason the complaint is outside our time limit is due to the delay from the Trust’s final response up to the complaint reaching us. We have seen no reasonable explanation for this delay and so we cannot set out time limit aside.

25. We understand how much Mr Y’s complaint means to him, and we thank him for bringing it to us. We are sorry for any further upset our decision may cause him. It is important we act in line with the law and we hope this statement fully explains the reasons we have reached this decision.

1. We were very sorry to hear of the death of Mr Y’s father, Mr N. It is clear from what Mr Y has told us that the loss of Mr N has had a profound impact on him and the rest of Mr N’s family. We can also see Mr Y has serious concerns about the care Mr N received.

2. We have carefully considered the concerns Mr Y has about the care the Trust provided. The complaint falls outside of our time limit and we have decided there is no good reason for us to put our time limit aside to consider it further. We know this will be a disappointing decision to Mr Y. We have explained our full reasons for this decision below.