George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust

5. Mr and Mrs G complain that on 14 October 2023, staff at George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust (the Trust) prescribed incorrect antibiotic medication to their son following a pre-treated deep cut to his thigh becoming swollen.

6. Mr and Mrs G also say the treating doctor told them it would be acceptable for their son to travel abroad as his wound appeared ‘okay’.

7. Mr and Mrs G say because of this on 16 October, whilst on holiday, their son was admitted to hospital via the Emergency Department as his wound had become badly infected.

8. They say their son had to remain in hospital until 9 November (24 days), whilst he received treatment for the infection. Mrs G says as she stayed with their son during his hospital admission, she lost three weeks’ pay from her work.

9. Mr G also says because of his wife having stayed with their son, on returning home he also had to take time away from work to provide care for their daughter, which his wife would have normally provided.

10. Mr and Mrs G are seeking financial redress for the loss of earnings they incurred during their son’s hospital admission.

11. On 12 October 2023, Mr and Mrs G’s son presented to the Trust after he fell from his bike, causing a deep cut on his right upper thigh. They say a doctor attended to their son’s wound, which was cleaned and stitched.

12. Mr G says his wife explained to staff they were due to go on holiday abroad in three days’ time and was told, ‘it is okay to go but your son’s thigh should not come into contact with water’, and ‘in ten days to go to your doctor’s practice (GP) to have the stitches removed’. Their son was then sent home to recover.

13. On 14 October, Mr G says he noticed something above the wound that made him question if it was okay. He says as his son also had a slight fever and was in pain, he went back to the Trust with his son. Mr G says another doctor saw his son and told him, ‘It’s all good, nothing to worry about’, and prescribed his son antibiotics ‘just in case’.

14. Mr G says again he mentioned that they were flying abroad for a holiday the following day and was told, ‘you can go, your son shouldn’t go into water’.

15. Mr and Mrs G say on 15 October, the family went on holiday in the morning and continued to administer the prescribed medication to their son.

16. On 16 October, as their son’s fever and pain continued, Mr and Mrs G took their son to the Emergency Department at the local hospital. They say they were told their son needed to stay overnight for assessment and Mrs G stayed with her son.

17. Mr and Mrs G say on 17 October, as their son became increasingly unwell, clinicians transferred him to another hospital as an emergency. They say between 17 and 19 October, the hospital completed further tests and x-rays to establish the cause of his illness.

18. On 20 October, Mr G and his daughter had to return home as the holiday had come to an end, leaving his son and his wife in the hospital.

19. Mr and Mrs G say on 22 October, doctors decided to place their son under general anaesthetic to open his wound because of infection. They say the doctors said, ‘the wound was very infected and could have been fatal if he had flown back home’.

20. Between 24 and 28 October, their son had three further surgical procedures under general anaesthetic to treat his wound.

21. Between 30 October and 9 November, their son received seven further extensive treatments to the wound whilst in hospital. Mrs G and her son returned home on 10 November.

24. Before we decide if we should investigate a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the events complained about had a negative impact, which the organisation has not put right. We have done this and are satisfied the Trust has now done enough to acknowledge the impact of the events.

25. Our Complaint Standards say, ‘staff should give meaningful and sincere apologies and explanations that openly reflect the impact on the people concerned’, and ‘should look at what action will be taken to learn from the experience to continuously improve services and help support staff’.

26. It also says organisations should, ‘make sure staff can offer a range of ways to put things right for the individual’.

27. Mr and Mrs G say that on 14 October 2023, staff at the Trust prescribed incorrect antibiotic medication to their son following a pre-treated deep cut to his thigh becoming swollen, and were told it would be acceptable for their son to travel abroad as his wound appeared ‘okay’.

28. In the complaint response, the Trust acknowledged as Mr and Mrs G’s son had redness around the wound and a high temperature, the medication it had prescribed was not the antibiotic of choice for a wound infection that may be developing.

29. The Trust apologised it had not prescribed a more appropriate antibiotic and explained it had given feedback to the doctor concerned for future learning. It also explained it would share the complaint at its next Urgent & Emergency Care Governance meeting to reach a wider forum of clinicians for greater learning.

30. Although, we do consider an apology, explanation, and service improvements good actions to putting things right, organisations should try to identify suitable and appropriate ways to put things right for people who raise a complaint.

31. Mr and Mrs G told us they were seeking financial redress of £1,613.52 for loss of earnings incurred during their son’s hospital admission. As Mr and Mrs G wanted financial redress and the Trust had not previously offered this, we considered the complaint has not been fully resolved by the Trust.

32. We therefore approached the Trust to see if it would agree to resolve the complaint by making a payment to recover Mr and Mrs G’s loss of earnings. The Trust told us it was happy to make payment of £1,613.52 to resolve the complaint.

33. We contacted Mr and Mrs G to discuss the proposed resolution. He explained he and his wife were happy to accept the financial payment of £1,613.52 from the Trust as resolution and would like us to close the complaint as fully resolved.

34. In our view, we have seen evidence the Trust provided a remedy which is in line with our Complaint Standards. It provided a full explanation, acknowledged, and apologised where things had gone wrong and accepted responsibility. The Trust also took steps to address the errors made and we consider those are enough to put right the impact he told us about.

35. We believe we have reached a resolution for Mr and Mrs G. We will therefore not take any further action on this point.

36. Although Mr and Mrs G were only seeking financial remedy and not service improvements, we have checked our records and are unable to find similar complaints about this issue regarding the Trust. We hope this provides some reassurance that this appears to be a one-off incident.

37. We recognise the difficult time for Mr and Mrs G and their family and hope this gives some reassurance the Trust has taken the complaint seriously.

1. We have carefully considered Mr and Mrs G’s complaint about the George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust (the Trust). They told us they would like financial redress for their loss of earnings incurred as a result of their son’s hospital admission whilst on holiday following treatment at the Trust.

2. We are sorry to learn their son was admitted to hospital for three weeks whilst becoming unwell on holiday following the treatment he received. We know this has been a difficult time for the family.

3. We have discussed this with and Mr and Mrs G and the Trust who have agreed a resolution that remedies Mr and Mrs G’s loss of earnings. This is the outcome they wanted to achieve.

4. We consider this is a proportionate remedy to the complaint without the need for us to investigate further.