East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust

5. Miss R complains about the care and treatment her mother, Mrs R, received from the Trust on 5 January 2024. Miss R says: • the Trust proceeded to administer morphine to her mother, although she informed staff her mother was allergic to morphine • Mrs R was not prioritised in emergency department and staff provided nursing care in the corridor • nursing staff was dismissive and uncaring.

6. Miss R says the morphine influenced her mother’s capacity to breathe and due to this she died on 19 January 2024.

7. Miss R also says the morphine caused her mother pain for the entire admission.

8. She says the lack of suitable care in the emergency department led to distress and anxiety.

9. Miss R would like the Trust to admit the morphine caused her mother’s death and provide a written letter of apology.

10. She is also seeking financial redress. Miss R would like the financial remedy to reflect her firmly held belief that the Trust is at fault.

11. Mrs R was 84 years old and had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). COPD is a type of progressive lung disease, which affects a patient’s breathing.

12. Mrs R had a fall at home on 5 January 2024 and sadly, she broke her arm.

13. Miss R called an ambulance and sha and her mother were both transferred to hospital.

14. In A&E, Miss R informed the nurses her mother was allergic to morphine. Miss R knew this because her mother was given one does of morphine in July 2023 and she had an allergic reaction. The nurses advised Miss R to inform the doctor.

15. Staff administered morphine to Mrs R, following the doctor’s review on 5 January 2024.

16. Mrs R remained in hospital until 19 January 2024 when she sadly died.

Treatment and care provided on 5 January 2024

20. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has the option to take legal action, unless we consider this is unreasonable in the circumstances. We have discussed this with Miss R 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.

21. Miss R complains the Trust took a long time to review her mother once she was in the emergency department.

22. She also complains the Trust cared for her mother in the corridor and the nursing staff were dismissive and uncaring.

23. Miss R says she informed the nursing staff, as soon as nursing staff attended her mother, that her mother was allergic to morphine.

24. Miss R says nursing staff did not document this in the medical records but rather told her to inform the doctor.

25. As such, the nurses did not pass on the information about Mrs R’s allergy to morphine to the doctor reviewing her mother’s clinical picture.

26. The doctor reviewed Mrs R’s records and prescribed morphine for the pain. The nurses administered the two doses of morphine recommended.

27. Miss R was able to advise the doctor of her mother’s morphine allergy as soon as the doctor attended her mother, but this was after the nurses administered the morphine.

28. Miss R believes the morphine affected her mother’s breathing and this in turn led to her mother’s death on 19 January 2024.

29. Miss R pointed out it is important to her to look at the whole chain of events starting with the waiting room in the emergency department, because she says the Trust prioritised all other patients before her mother and this set the tone for the care and treatment her mother received once she was triaged.

30. On that basis, we consider Miss R may have a potential clinical negligence claim available to her, because she describes the actions of the clinical staff led to her mother’s death and emotional harm.

31. Miss R told us she would not be able to self-fund to bring a legal claim. We consider no win no fee is only one of many options available for those who may struggle to fund court action. There are other funding streams available for example, house insurance policies may include legal cover and offer the opportunity to fund a claim.

32. There are other independent and impartial charitable organisations to assist in the legal claim. We have shared details of such organisation with Miss R. We appreciate it might be frustrating as Miss R wants the case to be resolved as soon as possible. We acknowledge it has been a difficult time for her and she still grieving the loss of her mother.

33. Miss R is seeking a financial remedy and we spoke to try to ascertain the amount Miss R is seeking.

34. Miss R understands it is difficult to compensate for someone’s life, she eloquently asked how much someone’s life is worth.

35. While Miss R does not know the exact amount of financial compensation she is seeking, she explained the amount of compensation she is seeking would have to be significant as it should prove her firm held belief that the actions of the Trust have led to her mother’s death.

36. If the person is claiming a serious injustice, then it is likely to be a higher value and more suitable for legal route to consider. Miss R had reasons to complain in January 2024, after the Trust admitted Mrs R to hospital. She is within the three-year statutory time limit to pursue clinical negligence claim.

37. It is reasonable to suggest Miss R explores this now while there is still time and could be more likely to achieve a financial remedy she would be satisfied with.

38. We consider Mrs R has a cause of action in clinical negligence it is reasonable for her to pursue this further by seeking legal advice from a few law firms. This is because of the seriousness of the injustice she is claiming and is important she fully explores her options while she is well within the three-year time limit.

39. Based on all the above, we cannot see anything preventing Miss R from exploring whether legal action is available to her. This could include via free legal services such as Action Against Medical Accidents (AVMA) or no win, no fee solicitors. If her circumstances change and it becomes clear it would no longer be reasonable for her to pursue a legal action, she could come back to us and ask us to investigate a complaint.

40. We are aware Miss R has told us that, alongside financial redress, she should like the Trust to acknowledge what has happened and apologise. Apologies can be the bi–product of successful legal action. As such, Miss R may be able to achieve this other outcome through legal action.

41. Furthermore, if Miss R were to return to us after unsuccessfully taking legal action, we could consider complaint about any matters that the court could not look at for her, or any outcomes that it could not have directly achieved for her. Miss R is aware she will need to do this as soon as possible, given we have strict time limits on complaints we can investigate.

42. We consider Miss R has legal route available to her and it is reasonable for her to pursue it. Therefore, we will take no further action.

43. We recognise Miss R is grieving the loss of her mother and we acknowledge she wants the Trust to take the responsibility for what has happened. We appreciate the time Miss R took to bring this complaint to us and we thank her for the time she took to discuss with us the events that led to this complaint.

1. We have carefully considered Miss R’s complaint about East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust (Trust).

2. We offer or deepest condolences for the loss of her mother. We recognise the loss of her mother and the events that took place during the last admission had a profound impact on her.

3. Miss R believes the actions of the Trust’s clinical staff on 5 January 2024 led to her mother’s death. We consider Miss R could take legal action on the aspects she has brought to us.

4. As such, we found Miss R has the option to consider making a clinical negligence claim in respect to the treatment and care her mother received from the Trust on 5 January 2024.