University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust

3. Miss A complains the care and treatment the Trust provided her father, Mr L, in November 2023, fell below a reasonable standard of care and was ‘negligent’, as staff failed to consider that her father may have had pneumonia, despite her telling several staff members she thought this was his illness.

4. Miss A also says on admitting Mr L to its ED department, staff did not make her father comfortable and left him in a wheelchair for 24 hours, despite knowing he was critically ill.

5. She also says staff made her father lie down flat to have an MRI scan even thought he was unable to lie down and breathe in this position.

6. Miss A says because of this, it took a further five days to diagnose and treat her father’s pneumonia which had progressed too far to respond to treatment. She says this led to him being placed in a coma and later dying from pneumonia several days later which she says may have had a different outcome should he have been treated sooner.

7. Miss A says she was traumatised by the way her father was treated and feels guilty that she took him to the hospital to the people she thought would help him. She says this added greatly to her grief and had severely impacted her mental health and wellbeing.

8. In bringing the complaint to us, Miss A is seeking compensation and service improvements as an outcome to her complaint.

9. Miss A says Mr L had smouldering myeloma (a form of blood cancer) and was having regular blood tests monthly to check his levels, the last being October 2023, which showed a change meaning his cancer had become active.

10. She says in early November, she arrived at her father’s home and noticed he was very confused and unwell so took him to hospital. She says on arrival he was placed in a room where tests were completed, after which he was put back in the ED and placed on a drip whilst waiting for a bed on a ward to become available.

11. Miss A says she had to return home for personal reasons and when she attended the Trust the following morning, found her father in the same place she had left him the night before.

12. The next day, Mr L started treatment for his myeloma, and two days later, Mr L was commenced antibiotic treatment for a possible infection.

13. Mr L developed a high temperature a few days later, and was later moved to the Intensive Care Unit where doctors placed him in a coma. Mr L sadly died at the end of November.

15. The Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 (section 4) says we cannot investigate a complaint if there is a legal route the complainant could pursue, unless we consider it is not reasonable for them to do so. This ensures the Ombudsman does not interfere with matters which are in the remit of the courts.

16. We have discussed this with Miss A to understand the 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.

17. Miss A told us the care and treatment her father received ‘fell below the expected standard’ and was ‘negligent’. In particular Trust staff failed to consider that her father may have had pneumonia, left her father in a wheelchair in the ED for 24 hours whilst critically ill, and made him lie down for a scan whilst unable to breath.

18. Miss A told us on treatment for his cancer being commenced her father became increasingly unwell, and his legs started to fill with fluid. She said she told staff her father had said he was struggling to breathe and felt like he was drowning.

19. Miss A says between 9 and 14 November, she suggested to several staff members that her father had symptoms of pneumonia as this caused her mother’s death, and his symptoms were the same, but staff disregarded her concerns.

20. She says she asked staff if fluid from his armpit could be drained to help relieve his symptoms and was told his condition was not severe enough.

21. Miss A told us because of this her father experienced a severe lack of care, and his medical condition extensively deteriorated. She considers this resulted in his death, and believes there could have been a different outcome.

22. Miss A says this has also significantly impacted her wellbeing and mental health. We are sorry to hear how much this has impacted Miss A.

23. Miss A has a clear legal route which she could use to potentially achieve her desired outcome of financial remedy. She could pursue a clinical negligence claim against the Trust. We have considered whether it is reasonable for her to pursue this legal route.

24. Miss A is seeking financial remedy of £8,000. This is for the ‘negligent’ care and suffering she says the Trust caused. In particular for it allegedly having failed to identify and treat her father’s pneumonia sooner, and the significant impact to her wellbeing, and mental health due to the events that have taken place.

25. Miss A’s desired outcome of financial remedy for clinical impact could be achieved through the courts. She is also seeking service improvements.

26. A clinical negligence claim is not the only way she might be able to achieve financial remedy, as we might consider recommending this if we upheld her complaint.

27. Miss A explained she came to us first as she believed this to be the best next step and thought this may be quicker than seeking legal advice. Miss A told us she did not have any personal or financial barriers to being able to pursue this.

28. In summary, there is a clear legal route which Miss A could pursue to achieve one of the outcomes she is seeking. Miss A is looking for financial remedy for the impact of the events that have taken place.

29. This is something the courts might be well-placed to achieve, and we do not want to disadvantage her. We can see no obvious barriers which might prevent Miss A from pursuing this. The courts cannot directly achieve the service improvements Miss A is seeking. However, she could achieve these as a by-product of taking legal action.

30. We consider it is reasonable for Miss A to pursue legal remedy. Miss A can return to our service is she is unable to get legal representation, or if she has any outstanding outcomes we can achieve, following legal action.

31. If Miss A chooses to bring the complaint back to us, we would normally ask for correspondence from three separate legal firms who advised they will not take his case forward. This is because we need to see sufficient evidence that there has been a change in circumstances, that would show us we may need to revisit our consideration of her complaint.

32. We would also advise Miss A does so as promptly as possible. This is because we have a one-year time-limit by which to consider complaints (from the day a person became aware of their reason to complain.) We have discretion to set this time-limit to one side if there are strong reasons to do so.

33. We are very sorry to hear of Miss A’s experience, and the continued impact this has had on her.

1. We have carefully considered Miss A’s complaint about the University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). We are sorry to hear about her lack of care Miss A says her father Mr L received in November 2023, and how his condition deteriorated. We recognise the impact of these events and how difficult this time has been for her.

2. We have decided to take no further action, as we consider Miss A could take legal action on the matter that she has brought to us. We have set out the reasons for our decision in this statement.