Bedfordshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

4. Mr A complains about the care and treatment provided to him by the Trust when he presented to it on 28 February 2018 after sustaining a head injury. Mr A complains the Trust misdiagnosed his brain injury as his initial examination was insufficient and it did not carry out the correct investigations.

5. On 8 March 2018 staff were rough when conducting his skull examination and he complains the Trust manipulated the result of his CT scan, changing the imaging to show no fracture to cover its mistakes from 28 February 2018 in failing to diagnose his brain injury.

6. On 22 October 2018 Mr A complains the neurologist did not listen to him, accurately record his symptoms or refer him for further testing.

7. Mr A says the Trust’s actions and its response to him has had an impact on his physical, psychological, and mental wellbeing.

8. He has told us the inadequate initial examination, and the poor record keeping meant his GP did not understand the nature of the incident and he did not receive the correct ongoing treatment or referrals. He states this led to him experiencing chronic pain, memory problems and difficulties with concentration and co-ordination.

9. He says the rough examination left him in excruciating pain, even though he begged the staff members to stop.

10. He explains because he believes his scans were manipulated and his brain injury was missed, he went back to work where he had bad experiences, and this caused him distress. He explains he would never have gone back to work if he had got correct treatment. He says this affected his daily activities and quality of life, including his mental health and it impacted his relationships. He explains he has lost trust in the NHS.

11. Mr A would like an explanation and apology so he can understand the reasons behind the Trust’s neglect. He would also like service changes, and compensation to account for significant impacts on his health, career and overall wellbeing.

12. On 18 February 2018 Mr A had an accident at work. An unattached fire door fell onto his head while he was crouching and working. The corner of the door hit him in the back of his head. He blacked out for a split second, and the door cut a fourinch bleeding gash to his head. He felt dizzy, disorientated and felt pressure around where the door hit him with a pain going down his neck.

13. Following the accident, he attended the Trust’s A&E. After waiting in A&E, but not having an examination by a doctor, his wound had four staples put in to close it and staff sent him home with a head injury advice form.

14. On 8 March he had a seizure/spasm. Paramedics attended Mr A and took him to hospital. The Trust’s staff examined his head and performed a CT scan. They noted the results of his CT scan as ‘normal’. Staff then sent him home.

15. Over the next year Mr A’s symptoms continued and his health declined. He went on to have various appointments and tests until he decided to bring his complaint.

18. The law says a person needs to make their complaint to us within a year of becoming aware of the problem. We cannot investigate complaints brought to us after one year, unless we consider there is a good reason to do so. We have discussed this with Mr A to understand the reasons why he could not do so. We have also considered the time the Trust has taken to respond to Mr A.

19. Mr A became aware he had a reason to complain about the Trust in May 2018 when he went back to work and realised things were not right. He discovered his concentration, organisation skills and ability to keep track of tools and material worsened, which slowed down his work. This stark difference to the competent worker he once was gave Mr A reason to believe the treatment and diagnosis he received was wrong. This prompted him to contact Citizens Advice in June 2018 with his initial complaint.

20. He did not bring his original complaint to us until 2 March 2020. In November 2020, he decided to seek an alternative way to resolve his complaint, and we closed his initial case.

21. On 17 May 2025 Mr A decided to bring his case back to us. This means Mr A bought his complaint back to us significantly outside of our time limit. It took Mr A four years and six months to bring his case back to us. The complaint is therefore seven years out of time since Mr A first became aware of his complaint.

22. We discussed this with Mr A to understand the reasons he could not originally proceed with his complaint and why subsequently he has not been able to bring his complaint to us sooner.

23. We appreciate Mr A’s reasoning for not progressing his case with us during this period. However, we cannot see Mr A described any barriers which prevented him from bringing his case to us during this time.

24. We originally received the case from him in March 2020. Mr A then did not respond to our correspondence about progressing his case and getting information from him to do so. We explained we would withdraw his case if we did not hear from him. As he did not respond, we withdrew his case in November 2020. .

25. Since bringing his complaint back to us he has confirmed he decided to pursue alternative legal proceedings instead. This meant he chose not to progress his complaint with us. He believed this would be the correct route to address his concerns, which resulted in a gap in his engagement about his complaint with us.

26.

27. Mr A has explained to us that in November 2021 he parted ways with the firm helping him with his legal proceedings Universal Law Community Trust. Between November 2021 and May 2025 Mr A did not come back to us to re-open his case.

28. He explained he did not want to share personal information like his name and title with us in order to make his complaint. For this reason, he chose not to approach us until May 2025, when he changed his mind about sharing the personal information we would need in order to consider a complaint about his care.

29. We recognise Mr A has experienced ongoing health issues. He has told us how much this has affected him profoundly. We can see Mr A has tried to bring his complaint, and pursue alternative legal paths. We are sorry these have not worked out for him.

30. We have not seen a good reason to put the time limit to one side on this case as the four year and six month gap between Mr A withdrawing his case and returning to us is a long time. Also, during this period, he made a decision not to progress his complaint when we saw no barrier for him doing so. This means we cannot take further action on his complaint.

31. It is important we consider and act within the law and we regret any further upset this decision may cause Mr A. We hope this statement clearly explains the reasons why we will not be considering his complaint further. We are sorry for any further upset caused and hope Mr A understands our position.

1. We have carefully considered Mr A’s complaint about Bedfordshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). The complaint falls outside of our time limit and we have decided there is no good reason for us to put our time limit aside to consider it further.

2. We recognise Mr A has experienced ongoing health issues. He has told us how much this has affected him profoundly and we were very sorry to hear this. We have taken Mr A’s concerns seriously and carefully considered them. Having done so, we do not consider Mr A has provided grounds for us to carry out a detailed investigation of a complaint made to us so far outside our time limit.

3. We fully acknowledge our decision will be disappointing for Mr A given how long he has been seeking answers to his concerns. We are sorry for any further distress this may cause, and hope our explanations below show how we have fully considered this.