Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust

The Ambulance Trust 4. Ms O complains that on the 11 July 2022 the London Ambulance Trust did not • triage her fiancé correctly and call handler did not show professionalism • proceed quickly once at scene • correctly diagnose or provide appropriate treatment • alert incoming hospital in timely manner.

The Trust 5. Ms O complains that on the 11 July 2022 the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust • delayed appropriate treatment to her fiancé • did not consider alternative treatments.

6. Ms O feels the service provided by the Ambulance Trust and Trust caused the death of her fiancé. In particular, she feels the Ambulance Trust’s treatment Ms O feels treatment of her and her fiancé was inhumane and degrading 7. Ms O watched her fiancé in pain for a significant amount of time causing her distress and upset. She ultimately lost her partner and feels like she has lost everything that is important to her.

8. By bringing this complaint to us, Ms O would like an apology, service improvements and financial remedy.

9. On 11 July 2022, Ms O made four emergency 999 calls between 4:50am and 6:08am, all classified as Category 2. Ms O’s husband was in excruciating pain and had lost all feeling in his leg. An ambulance arrived at 6:13am and left the scene at 7:28am. The crew made a pre-alert call to the Trust at 7:41am. Mr B arrived at the Trust’s Emergency Department at 7:52am and underwent triage at 8:20am. Staff administered morphine at 8:40am, followed by additional doses at 9:28am and 11:49am.

10. Mr B underwent emergency surgery to amputate his leg after a blood clot resulted in complete loss of circulation. The procedure was carried out the same day, and he was subsequently transferred to the intensive care unit at 8:45 p.m.

11. Mr B experienced two cardiac arrests (the heart suddenly stops beating) and sadly passed away at 12:45am on 12 July 2022.

12. On 11 August 2022, Ms O sent a letter to the Trust outlining her concerns about the care Mr B received from both organisations. The Trust subsequently forwarded the letter to the Ambulance Trust.

13. The Trust and the Ambulance Trust issued a formal response on 10 February 2023.

16. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has (or had) the option to take legal action, unless we consider this is (or was) unreasonable in the circumstances. Simply put, if someone has a legal route available to achieve the outcomes they are looking for. And if it is reasonable for them to pursue that route, we are not able to look at the complaint further.

17. To understand Ms O’s situation and desired outcomes, and whether it would be reasonable for her to explore legal action, we reviewed the documents she submitted to us and discussed this with her. Our role is not to assess whether legal action would be successful but rather whether it is a reasonable option to consider.

18. Ms O has raised several concerns about the clinical care provided by the Ambulance Trust and the Trust. Ms O is concerned that both organisations made mistakes which contributed to the death of her fiancé. As such, it appears that Ms O may have legal recourse through the courts with a clinical negligence claim.

19. We have therefore, considered whether legal action could help her achieve the outcomes she is seeking, and whether it is reasonable for her to take that route.

20. Ms O has indicated that she is seeking financial compensation for the avoidable death of her fiancé. Based on this, we can see the courts may be better placed to achieve this financial outcome.

21. We also considered possible barriers to pursuing legal action and any reasons why it might not be reasonable for Ms O to take legal action. Ms O indicated that she has not pursued this route as she believes she has 7 years to take this action.

22. We have explained to Ms O that Under the Limitation Act 1980, the time limit for bringing a claim is three years. This means that legal proceedings must be issued, or the claim settled, by the eve of the third anniversary of her fiancé’s death. If not, the claim may be time barred and unable to proceed.

23. With the above in mind, we can see Ms O does not have much time to pursue this route to possibly achieve the financial remedy she seeks.

24. In addition to financial compensation, Ms O also seeks an apology, acknowledgement and service improvements. This is not something courts are likely to directly achieve for her, although they may be achieved as a byproduct of any legal action.

25. Taking all of this into account we consider it is appropriate for Ms O to explore legal action before the time limit for doing so runs out. For that reason, we will not take further action on her complaint at this time.

26. If Ms O pursues legal action which does not achieve all of the outcomes she is seeking, she can return to us after legal action is complete.

27. It is also open for Ms O to return to us if she explores legal action and it becomes clear that it is no longer reasonable for her to pursue that route.

28. If Ms O does return to us in future, it is important she does so promptly because we would need to consider our own one-year time limit, in line with the ‘Health Service Commissioner Act 1993’. We can set this limit to one side where there is good reason to do so.

29. Any delays in returning to us may affect our ability to set the limit aside, so if she decides to return to us, we encourage her to contact us as soon as possible.

30. We understand that this is a difficult time for Ms O, and we would like to thank her for sharing her loss and experience following her fiancé’s death. We appreciate the openness she has shown in describing the events and her concerns. We hope this statement clearly sets out how we thought about what she told us and how we reached our decision in this case.

1. We have carefully considered Mrs O’s complaint about London Ambulance Service NHS Trust (the Ambulance Trust) and Imperial College Health Care NHS Trust (the Trust).

2. Mrs O complained about aspects of the care and treatment the Ambulance Trust and the Trust provided to her fiancé, Mr B, when he was diagnosed with a blood clot in his leg. We are very sorry to hear about the loss of Ms O’s fiancé and the impact this has had and continues to have on her.

3. Having carefully thought about what Ms O has told us we have decided to take no further action at this time. This is because we can see Ms O has a legal route available to her to achieve the financial remedy she is seeking, and we consider it is reasonable for her to explore that route now. We explain further below.