North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust

3. Mrs I complains about the treatment North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) provided after a fall on 20 May 2020. Mrs I says the Trust dismissed her pain as arthritis and dismissed her concerns. Mrs I says the Trust failed to inform her of the operation she was having and the reasons for that operation. She had surgery in March 2022. She says:

• the Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon (the Surgeon) requested x-rays which were not done used old x-rays to say the fracture made the arthritis worse • on the day of complainant’s surgery the Surgeon told her the bones were clumped together and now says he does not recall saying this • a physiotherapist told her that four bones had been removed but has since they cannot recall saying that and it was three • she was not told that the operation (proximal row carpectomy) performed on her wrist was for arthritis until her appointment with physiotherapy. Until that point she states she had been told the operation was not for arthritis.

4. Mrs I felt she was not believed for 22 months despite saying something was wrong with her wrist. Mrs I says the Surgeon saying it was most likely arthritis made her feel old and worthless.

5. Mrs I says the poor care meant she had to rely on friends and family to do housework and shopping, and she lost independence.

6. Mrs I would like a financial remedy and wants the Surgeon and physiotherapist to admit what they said to her about the treatment.

7. Mrs I fell and broke her left wrist 25 May 2020.

8. Mrs I was discharged back to her GP by the Trust in August of 2020 after advising of continuing discomfort and shooting pains.

9. In January 2021 the Surgeon stated that he had requested an x-ray the next time Mrs I attended an appointment.

10. In April 2022 the Surgeon wrote to Mrs I’s GP to confirm that she had no pain in her wrist following her surgery in March.

11. Mrs I complained to the Trust 7 June 2023 and had a meeting with them in July.

12. Mrs I had a meeting with the physiotherapy team lead in November 2023.

14. 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 I to understand the reasons why she could not do so. We have also considered the time the organisation has taken to respond to Mrs I.

15. Mrs I told us that she initially explored legal action in 2022 and was not aware that she could make a complaint to the Trust until shortly before her complaint in June 2023, when a friend told her.

16. We consider that Mrs I knew about the matters complained about from her last physiotherapy session on 28 June 2022. We can be confident she knew about all the matters complained about from this date as it is the latest date that she became aware she had cause to make a complaint. This means to be within our time limit, Mrs I needed to bring her complaint to us by 28 June 2023.

17. Mrs I first approached us in June 2024, and we received her formal complaint 17 July 2024. It is therefore one year and one month out of time.

18. In coming to our decision, we have established long periods of delay. We have taken into account Mrs I’s reasons for these delays in addition to the time it took for the Trust to respond to her complaint.

19. Mrs I formally complained to the Trust in June 2023. We explored with Mrs I the reasons why she did not complain to the Trust earlier.

20. She told us that she was exploring legal action until November 2022 and was not aware that she could take any other action until June 2023.

21. The Trust issued a final response to Mrs I in March 2023. We acknowledge that it took the Trust 9 months to complete its complaint process.

22. Mrs I says she was unaware that she could make a formal complaint to the Trust until June 2023. However, as her concerns about her care began in 2020 we consider that Mrs I could have complained to the Trust much sooner than June 2023. We consider our time limit, and that the NHS provides time for complainants to look into how to raise a complaint.

23. We recognise that Mrs I wanted to pursue legal action initially. She determined that legal action was not an option in November 2022. Mrs I could have raised a complaint around that time or after she found legal action was not viable. We have not seen that pursuing legal action was a barrier to Mrs I raising a complaint sooner.

24. We have considered the significant delay and having carefully considered all the reasons, do not believe there are grounds for us to set aside the time limit in this case. There was a delay in the Trust completing its complaint process once Mrs I raised it. She did not complain until June 2023, a year after she knew she had cause to complain.

25. We do not doubt the huge effect this experience has had on Mrs I and recognise the importance of this complaint to her. Although our decision may be disappointing, we hope Mrs I is assured that we have carefully considered her explanations of delay and have explained our decision clearly.

1. We have carefully considered Mrs I’s complaint about North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). We were sorry to hear about the pain she experienced in her wrist for 22 months and the considerable effect this had on her independence.

2. We have considered the evidence available, including the profound effect the events had on Mrs I. We have decided the complaint falls outside of our time limit. We have identified significant delays and having carefully considered the reasons, do not believe there are grounds for us to set aside our time limit in this case.