Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust

3. Mr V complains about aspects of treatment and aftercare relating to his operation on 2 March 2022, specifically: • the surgeon who performed the operation did not have Mr V’s correct information or latest scans and the surgery was not done correctly • he was prematurely discharged the day after the operation despite still being unwell, and was not given aftercare advice • he was prescribed antibiotics that contained penicillin despite being allergic.

4. Mr V says he became very unwell a few days after the operation. He says he had blood clots, a severe urinary infection and sepsis and nearly died. He says he later needed corrective surgery and implants. Mr V says the impact of the surgery has been life changing and the effects are ongoing and lifelong. He says he is incontinent, his mental health has been affected, and he has Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

5. Mr V wants the Trust to acknowledge what went wrong. He would also like financial remedy. He says he has looked at our Financial Remedy Guide and considers an appropriate level of financial remedy would fall between Levels 5 and 6 of our Severity of Injustice scale (these levels recommend remedy amounts from £3,750 to £12,500+).

6. Mr V had a transurethral resection of prostate (TURP, which is a surgical procedure used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia, where the prostate gland has become enlarged and causes urinary problems) procedure on 2 March 2022. Mr V was discharged the next day, 3 March 2022.

7. Mr V made a complaint to the Trust on 22 March 2022. He wrote to the Trust again on 4 May 2022 to make new complaints.

8. The Trust responded to both Mr V’s complaints on 30 May 2022. It told him he could complain to us.

9. Mr V wrote to the Trust on 2 March 2024. He said the response to his previous complaints was not satisfactory.

10. The Trust replied on 18 March 2024. It said in its previous response he had been given a full explanation of the surgery performed, and post-operative expectations. The Trust said Mr V could bring his concerns to us.

11. Mr V complained to us on 19 November 2024.

14. The HSC Act says we cannot investigate complaints brought to PHSO after one year, unless we consider there is a good reason to do so. When we receive a complaint, we consider if it is within our time limit. This means we look at whether the complaint was passed to us within 12 months of when the complainant knew they had a reason to complain. If the complaint is outside our time limit, we consider the reasons for this. Finally, we look at whether the reasons for the delay in coming to us were reasonable in the circumstances.

Dates of events and knowledge

15. The Trust wrote to Mr V’s GP on 17 March 2022 and said the surgeon who performed the surgery had spoken to Mr V and his wife on the phone that day. It said Mr V had told the surgeon he had a terrible time post operatively and had developed a pulmonary embolism and had some issues with the removal of his catheter.

16. Mr V wrote to the Trust on 22 March and said he wanted to express his concerns about the surgery. He said he wanted his concerns about events between 2 and 7 March to be investigated.

17. This shows Mr V was aware he had a reason to complain about these matters as they occurred, between 2 and 7 March 2022. Mr V should have complained to us by 7 March 2023 at the latest.

18. Mr V sent another email to the Trust on 4 May 2022. He said he wanted to add further complaints to his email of 22 March 2022 about problems relating to the TURP operation that had happened between 4 April and 4 May.

19. This means Mr V was aware he had reasons to complain about his concerns relating to events between 4 April and 4 May, as they happened. Mr V should have complained to us by 4 May 2023.

20. The Trust replied to Mr V’s complaints on 30 May 2022. It said if he was not happy with the final response to his complaint, he could contact PHSO. It advised it was important to contact us as soon as possible because there were time limits for us to look into complaints.

21. Mr V wrote again to the Trust on 2 March 2024. He said he wanted to make a formal complaint about the operation he had on 2 March 2022. He said the response to his previous complaint was not satisfactory. He said since his last correspondence he had transferred his care to Colchester Hospital. Mr V said a flexi cystoscopy had been done at Colchester Hospital on 21 July 2022 and found he had debris and calcification. Another TURP was done at Colchester Hospital on 20 October 2022 to clear this out and Mr V had an artificial urinary sphincter insertion on 22 March 2023.

22. The Trust replied on 18 March 2024. It said it had reviewed Mr V’s documentation and the response to his original complaint. It said he had been given a full explanation of the surgery performed, and post-operative expectations. The Trust said Mr V could take his concerns to us.

23. Mr V’s advocate sent an email to the Trust on 2 August 2024 and asked if it would agree to investigate and respond further to his complaint. The Trust replied on 5 August 2024 and said it recommended that Mr V should contact our office.

24. Mr V complained to us on 19 November 2024. He completed the complaint form with the help of his advocate.

Reasons for delay

25. We have seen that Mr V knew he had reason to complain between 2 March and 4 May 2022. Mr V should have complained to us between March and May 2023. He complained in November 2024. This means he is between 18 and 20 months outside the statutory time limit.

26. For us to move the time limit to one side we must be satisfied the explanation given for the delay is reasonable.

27. In the complaint form, Mr V explained he did not bring his complaint to us sooner because whilst he had been going through the complaints process, he had been readmitted to hospital and had been very unwell. He also said his mental health had been impacted due to his complaint and was a reason for the delay. He said the complaints process had moved quite slowly, and he had only been informed of the Trust’s final response in 2024.

28. We discussed the reasons for the delay further in a phone call with Mr V and his wife. He said he had been very unwell and in and out of hospital. He said the impact on his mental health had also been part of reason for the delay. He said he had also been waiting for his new hospital, Colchester, to complete its own investigations into his health to find out how the TURP operation had caused ongoing issues. He said he had not known about us until 2024.

Are there reasons to exercise discretion?

29. In accordance with the HSC Act, we have carefully considered Mr V’s explanations for the delay in bringing his complaint to us.

30. The Trust has 40 working days to respond to a complaint. We have seen the Trust did not delay responding to Mr V’s complaints. This means the Trust is not responsible for any delay in Mr V being able to complain to us.

31. We can see that in its letter of 30 May 2022, the Trust told Mr V he could complain to us. It also explained he should contact us as soon as possible because of our time limits. This means Mr V was aware he could complain to us from 30 May 2022. It also means he was aware there was a time limit to do so. Our website explains there is a 12-month time limit for making a complaint to us.

32. We have seen Mr V was able to complain to the Trust in March and May 2022. We think he could have complained to us once he received the response from the Trust. We received his complaint two and a half years later.

33. We recognise the ongoing issues he has experienced with his health. We think Mr V could have contacted a local advocacy service to help him bring the complaint to us much sooner than he did. We have not seen anything that would make us think Mr V was unable to ask an advocate to help him with his complaint if he was struggling with his health during the period of delay.

34. Mr V told us that Colchester Hospital took over his care after the TURP operation. He told us about investigations and procedures the hospital then carried out. These ended with the operation on 22 March 2023. Mr V knew he had reasons to complain in March and May 2022. We do not consider it was reasonable for Mr V to wait to find out the full impact of the surgery of 2 March 2022 before complaining to us.

35. It is reasonable to expect that if he was unhappy with the Trust’s response in May 2022, Mr V could and should have brought the complaint to us much sooner than November 2024. We acknowledge the reasons Mr V says he was not able to complain to us within the time limit. We do not think he has provided a clear reason to persuade us to set our time limit aside. We are not persuaded there are sufficient grounds to waive the time limit. On that basis, we have decided not to consider his complaint further. We acknowledge our decision may be disappointing for Mr V and we do not wish to undermine what he has told us about the events and their impact on him.

1. We have carefully considered Mr V’s complaint about the Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’). We have decided the complaint falls outside of our time limit and we have not seen good reason to put our time limit to one side. Therefore, we propose to take no further action.

2. We are sorry to hear about the circumstances of Mr V’s complaint. We have taken Mr V’s concerns seriously and carefully considered them. We do not consider he has provided grounds for us to carry out a detailed investigation of a complaint made to us outside our time limit. We acknowledge our decision may be disappointing for Mr V.