NHS in England Closed After Initial Enquiries Search on PHSO website

Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust

P-003512 · Statement · Decision date: 29 April 2025 · View Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust scorecard
Complaint (AI summary)
Mrs Y complained the Trust missed an opportunity to diagnose her late husband's bowel cancer earlier in the ED, potentially impacting his chances of survival.
Outcome (AI summary)
The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint, finding no indications of service failure or a missed opportunity for earlier diagnosis in Mr Y's care.

Full decision details

The Complaint

6. Mrs Y complains about the care provided to her late husband, Mr Y, by the Trust. She complains that when Mr Y presented to the ED on 8 May 2022, the Trust missed an opportunity to carry out diagnostic tests for bowel cancer.

7. Mrs Y considers if the Trust had conducted diagnostic tests on 8 May 2022, Mr Y could have undergone surgery and begun treatment one month sooner than he did. She believes this may have impacted on his chances of survival. Mrs Y tells us the loss of Mr Y in August 2023 has impacted her and her young son significantly.

8. As an outcome to the complaint, Mrs Y is seeking service improvements to the Trust’s cancer screening when someone presents in a similar way to Mr Y. Mrs Y is also seeking a financial remedy which reflects the impact she and her son have faced.

Background

9. Mr Y attended the ED on 8 May 2022 with symptoms of abdominal pain and rectal bleeding. He was examined and discharged with an appointment arranged for an outpatient flexible sigmoidoscopy on 19 May 2022. This was later rearranged for 8 June 2022.

10. Mrs Y tells us Mr Y underwent a Computed Tomography (CT) scan (used to obtain detailed internal images of the body) a month later at a different NHS Trust. He was diagnosed with stage four bowel cancer. Mr Y was 42 at the time of his diagnosis. Mrs Y informs us they were told the cancer had spread to the liver, lung, and lymph nodes.

11. Mr Y underwent treatment but sadly died in August 2023.

Findings

15. Mrs Y complains that when Mr Y presented to the ED on 8 May 2022, his symptoms were not considered together, and if they had been, he would have had a scan when he presented to the ED. Mrs Y highlights that Mr Y had ongoing abdominal pain, a CRP outside of the normal range, and rectal bleeding.

16. In response to the complaint, the Trust concluded that when considering all the facts of Mr Y’s attendance to the ED, a sigmoidoscopy and/or colonoscopy was the appropriate investigation to request, and there were no indications further immediate investigation was needed at the time.

17. We have reviewed Mr Y’s medical records with our adviser to determine if Mr Y was reviewed appropriately, and if any further investigations were needed at the time of his presentation to the ED.

18. The NICE CKS on the assessment and diagnosis of acute abdominal pain says that clinicians should assess the patient’s vital signs, take a history and ask about the pain (location, onset, duration, severity, progression) and any other symptoms or red flag features, perform an abdominal examination and any other appropriate examinations (such as a rectal examination), and arrange appropriate investigations.

19. The NICE CKS on gastrointestinal tract (lower) cancers says that adults should be referred to a suspected cancer pathway (for an appointment in two weeks) for colorectal cancer if tests show occult blood in their faeces, or they are aged 40 years and over with unexplained weight loss and abdominal pain. A referral should also be considered for adults with a rectal or abdominal mass. Our adviser explained occult blood in the faeces would be blood mixed with the stool, as opposed to fresh blood separate from the stool.

20. The GMC’s Good Medical Practice guidance says doctors must provide a good standard of practice and care, when assessing, diagnosing, or treating patients, they must: • Adequately assess the patient’s conditions, taking account of their history (including the symptoms and psychological, spiritual, social, and cultural factors), their views and values; where necessary, examine the patient, • Promptly provide or arrange suitable advice, investigations, or treatment where necessary, • Refer a patient to another practitioner when this serves the patient’s needs. (point 15)

21. We can see the clinician took a history of Mr Y’s symptoms and carried out an examination which did not indicate any signs of an abdominal mass or cause for rectal bleeding upon rectal examination. Mr Y did not have any worrying vital signs and did not report any weight loss.

22. With regards to the bleeding, our adviser explained the records do not suggest there was clear occult blood in the faeces. The history recorded Mr Y had experienced bright red blood, which would suggest it was fresh blood, rather than blood in the stool.

23. The ED doctor then spoke with the consultant, who had a discussion with the general surgical registrar. Our adviser explained this would be a standard action to take with patients who present in a similar way to Mr Y, and we can see this is in line with the GMC’s Good Medical Practice guidance.

24. The general surgical registrar decided to arrange an outpatient appointment for a flexible sigmoidoscopy and provided safety netting advice to Mr Y to return if the bleeding continued, if he developed severe pain, or if he was feeling more unwell. Our adviser explained this was a reasonable treatment plan when taking into consideration Mr Y’s age and presenting symptoms.

25. We understand that there was no indication at that time for further investigations, such as a CT scan. The NICE CKS on the assessment and diagnosis of acute abdominal pain says investigations in secondary care may include an abdominal CT scan, where conditions such as abdominal sepsis or bowel obstruction are suspected. It also says investigations may include colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy.

26. Our adviser confirmed Mr Y had no signs of sepsis or bowel obstruction, and so an immediate CT scan was not indicated. We can see Mr Y was referred for an outpatient colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy based on his presenting symptoms. We understand there were no indications this needed to be done urgently.

27. Overall, we consider Mr Y’s management in the ED on 8 May 2022 was in line with the NICE and GMC guidance we have referenced above. Mr Y was assessed and examined, and advice was sought from a specialist. As there were no indications Mr Y required urgent investigations, an outpatient appointment was arranged to further investigate the cause of his symptoms. For this reason, we have not identified any indications for further investigation.

Our Decision

1. We have carefully considered Mrs Y’s complaint about the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust (the Trust). We were sorry to learn how Mrs Y, and her late husband, Mr Y, were affected by the concerns raised. Understandably, this has been a cause of great concern for Mrs Y and her family, and we recognise she is seeking answers about Mr Y’s care, as well as a remedy to put things right for her and her family.

2. We have reviewed the information provided by Mrs Y and the Trust, as well as considering the guidance and standards relevant to the case. We also sought advice from an emergency medicine consultant who has extensive experience in the management of patients in the emergency department (ED).

3. After doing so, we have not identified any indications of a service failure in the care provided to Mr Y. We hope this is reassuring for Mrs Y as we know how concerned she was that an opportunity was missed to diagnose Mr Y sooner.

4. We will explain the reasons for our decision in this statement. Complaints give us valuable insight into the organisations we investigate, so we would like to thank Mrs Y for sharing her experience with us. We recognise this is not an easy step to take.

5. It is important to acknowledge that where we have not identified any indications something went wrong in relation to the care provided to Mr Y, it does not detract from his experience, nor the impact this had on him and his family.

Other Decisions About Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust

P-004927 · 26 Feb 2026
Mrs B complains about how two Trust’s and a Practice monitored and managed her mother’s cancer. She explains something was …
Not Upheld
P-004275 · 17 Nov 2025
Ms B complains the Trust did not identify the severity of her mother, Mrs F's broken shoulder in June 2023 …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-003914 · 8 Sep 2025
Mrs U complains the Trust did not follow guidance when it gave intravenous (IV) fluids to her husband, Mr U, …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-003719 · 10 Jul 2025
Miss X complains that in October and November 2021 the Trust failed to investigate and treat her father’s sepsis and …
Not Upheld
P-003340 · 11 Feb 2025
Mrs D complains about the treatment the Trust gave her husband for COVID-19. She also complains his oxygen mask disconnected …
Partly Upheld
View all decisions for this organisation →