United Lincolnshire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

4. Ms N complains about aspects of care and treatment her brother, Mr N, received from the Trust between 14 November 2022 and 27 September 2023. Specifically, she says the Trust:

• delayed treatment for oesophagus cancer from diagnosis on 14 November 2022 until 6 March 2023. This was due to start on 12 December 2022 • did not tell Mr N his prognosis was less than one year • showed no empathy or compassion when it told Mr N his cancer had spread and there was no further treatment available on 11 May 2023 • did not inform Mr N’s family that he contracted hospital acquired pneumonia, escherichia coli (bacteria in the lower intestine) and septicaemia during his final hospital admission. Instead, it told the family he had covid • did not provide the correct mattress which led to bed sores • did not consider Mr N’s wishes to move to a different ward or hospice on 25 September 2023 • the palliative care team did not visit Mr N until the day he sadly died.

5. Mr N was mentally frustrated with the delays and was miserable on the ward where he sadly died on 27 September 2023. Ms N said this was difficult to watch. Ms N said the delay in treatment diminished his survival chances. Her brother’s death has had a significant impact on her and her family. The Trust’s actions made this worse.

6. Ms N seeks the truth and answers. She also seeks service improvements and a financial remedy.

9. 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 communicated with Ms N 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.

10. It is our understanding a clinical negligence claim may be available. This is because Ms N has told us the Trust delayed her brother’s treatment and this contributed to his death.

11. Ms N seeks the truth and answers. She also seeks service improvements and a financial remedy. We gave information to Ms N about our approach to recommending financial remedies, as set out in our severity of injustice scale (SOI). Ms N told us she would like a financial remedy above level six on our SOI. Although she has not specified a figure, she is looking for a significant sum.

12. Ms N also told us she has spoken to a solicitor at Ringrose law. She decided to wait and see what the Ombudsman found first before proceeding with a legal claim. As she has already spoken to a solicitor, we consider there are no barriers to her doing so again.

13. While we can make recommendations on investigation for financial remedies, the amounts we recommend are typically modest when compared with what legal action can achieve. We do not achieve financial outcomes like the courts do.

14. If we found failings, it is difficult for us to say at this early stage what the impact would be. Because Ms N has already spoken to a solicitor and seeks a larger financial remedy, legal action would be the best route for Ms N to obtain her outcome. We cannot guarantee we would recommend above level six.

15. A legal claim would achieve compensation for Ms N. The truth, answers and, if the claim is successful, service improvements would likely be a by-product of a legal case.

16. Most clinical negligence claims are funded by way of no win no fee agreements which would not incur any upfront costs. There does not appear to be any concerns about this type of funding. Ms N told us the solicitor she has already spoken to is a no win no fee firm.

17. We feel it is proportionate for Ms N to speak to a solicitor before she asks us to consider her concerns about her brother’s treatment. If Ms N is unsuccessful in pursuing legal action or is unable to achieve the outcomes she wants, she can bring her complaint back to us to consider. We cannot look at concerns a court has already examined, but we can consider if there is anything remaining we can look at, and if there are any other outcomes we may be able to achieve for her.

18. Ms N does not have a possible cause of action for the remaining parts of the complaint about communication and how the Trust dealt with her brother’s care. These are closely linked to her main concern about her brother’s delayed treatment, and Ms N has been clear that is her main concern. It would not be appropriate for us to look at the remaining part of the complaint in isolation. We would not be able to achieve the outcomes she is seeking from looking at this part of the complaint only. This is because Ms N says her main concerns is the delayed treatment and this links to her primary impact that her brother’s life was shortened. It is also possible that Ms N may obtain answers through information she will see from the Trust through taking legal action.

19. Should Ms N want to bring her complaint back to us, she should do so as promptly as she can. This is because we have a time limit for looking at complaints which is 12 months from the date the person was aware they had reason to complain. We do have some discretion when applying our time limit but there must be good reason for us to put this to one side.

20. We thank Ms N for bringing her complaint to us for us to consider. We would like to again offer our condolences for Ms N’s loss and hope this decision statement clearly explains our reasoning.

1. We have carefully considered Ms N’s complaint about the care provided to her brother by United Lincolnshire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (the Trust).

2. We are sorry to hear about the events that led to her complaint and the death of her brother. We understand this has been, and remains to be a difficult time for Ms N and her family.

3. We consider Ms N could possibly take legal action on the main part of the complaint she has brought to us by way of a clinical negligence claim. We have explained the reasons for this within this statement.