Barnsley Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

5. Mr L complains about the following aspects of care the Trust provided his wife between 22 August and 27 September 2023: • doctors prescribed tazocin antibiotics which caused an allergic reaction • Mrs L was not immediately transferred to a specialist unit following her allergic reaction • doctors did not respond promptly to Mrs L’s deterioration • staff wrongly recorded Mrs L was allergic to flucloxacillin antibiotics, meaning potentially lifesaving treatment could not be used • Mrs L was denied transfer to another hospital early in her admission due to her illness but was granted the transfer later, despite being in far worse condition.

6. Mr L is being represented by Mr F. Mr F has explained Mr L and his family are devastated to lose Mrs L and her death has had a considerable emotional and financial impact upon Mr L. Further upset and distress has been caused by the belief her death could have been avoided, had she received timely and effective treatment.

7. Mr L wants the Trust to acknowledge its mistakes and apologise for them. He also wants the Trust to improve its service and pay him a financial remedy.

8. Mrs L was admitted to the Trust on 22 August 2023 with suspected liver problems. Doctors saw raised infection markers on 29 August and, following tests, suspected she may be suffering from a respiratory infection.

9. Doctors prescribed Mrs L with tazocin antibiotics on 5 September due to her ongoing chest infection.

10. On 20 September, Mrs L developed red rashes on her body. Doctors suspected it was an allergic reaction but did not consider it was serious.

11. Mrs L’s rash continued to worsen, and she was seen by a dermatologist on 25 September. She was diagnosed with Stevens Johnson Syndrome (a rare and serious skin disorder which is usually caused by a reaction to medication).

12. Mrs L was transferred to another hospital on 30 September and sadly died on 4 October.

15. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has (or had) the option to take legal action, unless we consider it is (or was) unreasonable under the circumstances.

16. A person may pursue a clinical negligence claim and seek compensation if they believe poor care and treatment caused injury, or death. This can also include psychiatric (emotional) injury.

17. Mr L tells us his wife was admitted to hospital in August 2023 and sadly died in October because of the poor treatment she received. Mr L says had the Trust provided timely and appropriate treatment, his wife may have survived. He explains this had a significant emotional and financial impact upon him. This may mean Mr L has a legal cause of action he could explore.

18. Mr L was unable to give the financial sum seeks but appears satisfied with level six on our severity on injustice scale and the sums this indicates. Level six equates to a financial remedy of around £12,500 or more.

19. It is clear from Mr F’s correspondence that Mr L places significant importance on financial remedy. He explains Mr L and his children are struggling financially as a result of Mrs L’s death, so any financial remedy achieved by our Office would provide ‘crucial support’ to avoid the ‘constant burden of financial uncertainty.’

20. Mr F says the family cannot afford to take legal action and explained that he wanted to see the outcome of our investigation first before considering what legal steps were available.

21. We understand Mr F and Mr L have not yet approached a solicitor to see if they are willing to take on Mr L’s complaint. We discussed these matters with Mr F alongside the outcomes Mr L seeks to better understand if legal action may be better suited for Mr L at this stage.

22. We recognise Mr L also seeks service improvements, an acknowledgement, and an apology alongside a financial remedy. We appreciate legal action cannot directly achieve these other outcomes.

23. If someone seeks a mix of outcomes, some of which they cannot achieve through legal action, we still consider if it is appropriate for someone to pursue legal action. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed, only whether it would be a reasonable option to explore.

24. Outcomes like acknowledgement of errors, an apology and service improvements may also be achieved indirectly through legal action. While a court cannot typically recommend such outcomes, an organisation may take those actions proactively to avoid similar legal claims in future.

25. Based on what Mr F told us, it is clear financial remedy is important to Mr L and his family. We appreciate they have been through a traumatic experience, and we do not wish to add to this. We must, however, consider whether we may be doing Mr L a disservice if we took on his complaint at this stage. It may be that the legal route is better suited to achieve the financial remedy he seeks.

26. Mr L could, for example, take his concerns to a solicitor like he has done with us and there is the potential his claim could be considered on a ‘no-win-no-fee’ basis. This would typically mean there are no upfront costs.

27. It is also important to set out that our service is funded by the public purse. As such, any investigation by our Office is not to further or support a potential future private legal claim. If someone has, or had, a legal claim which may achieve the outcomes they seek, and it is, or was, reasonable for them to pursue, we will usually expect them to explore this first.

28. After careful consideration, we have decided it is reasonable for Mr L to seek some independent legal advice in the first instance. We think it is important for Mr L to be fully aware of what legal action may be able to achieve for him, particularly in light of the financial impact Mr F describes.

29. Mr L could come back to us if solicitors decline to consider his claim or if they were unable to achieve all the outcomes he wanted. If Mr L chose to do so, we would need to carefully consider at that stage whether it was appropriate for us to look into his complaint. We may also need to review any correspondence he received from those solicitors.

30. It is also important to stress that if Mr L wants to come back to us following his legal enquiries, he must do so without delay. Should Mr L delay in coming back to us, it may mean we cannot consider his complaint.

31. We recognise this decision may come as a disappointment, but we hope we have clearly explained our thinking.

1. We have carefully considered Mr L’s complaint about the Trust. We are sorry to hear of his concerns about the care his wife, Mrs L, received before she died.

2. We have decided it is reasonable for Mr L to seek independent legal advice on his complaint. This means we cannot consider it further at this stage.

3. We recognise how deeply Mr L has been affected by Mrs L’s death and we do not underestimate how difficult it has been for him or his family.

4. Although we are unable to look into Mr L’s complaint at this stage, we hope this statement clearly explains the reasons for our decision and why we see it is important for him to seek independent legal advice in the first instance.