ENT appointment list
17. Mr A complains the Trust removed him from the waiting list for an ENT appointment in August 2024 after it incorrectly said he had missed multiple calls and voicemails. Mr A says he only received one missed call from the Trust at the beginning of August 2024, and he did not receive any voicemails.
18. Our Principles of Good Administration say when taking decisions, organisations should behave reasonably and ensure that the measures taken are proportionate to the objectives pursued, appropriate in the circumstances, and fair to the individuals concerned.
19. The Trust acknowledges it likely sent Mr A letter advising of his removal from the ENT appointment list after the initial call at the beginning of August. The Trust also accepts its explanation of removing Mr A from the appointment list due to multiple calls missed and voicemails left was incorrect.
20. The Trust’s actions here are not in line with Our Principles of Good Administration. It does not seem proportionate, appropriate, or fair, to remove Mr A from an appointment list for missing one call. There are indications of failings here. We will consider the impact of this later in the statement.
Communication
21. Mr A complains the Trust incorrectly advised him, and his wife, that it had re-listed him for his ENT appointment. He says he still received communication from the Trust to say it had removed him from the list for an appointment.
22. Our Principles of Good Administration say organisations should communicate effectively and should do what they say they are going to do. It also says organisations should maintain reliable records.
23. After Mr A received the letter from the Trust about it removing him from the appointment list, Mr A’s wife contacted Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS) department at the Trust on his behalf. PALS confirmed with Mr A’s wife that he had been re-instated on the ENT appointment list.
24. Approximately four weeks later, Mr A says he received an email from the Trust’s ENT department. This email advised Mr A that the ENT department had removed him from the list for an ENT appointment.
25. Mr A contacted the Trust in mid-October and spoke with PALS. PALS confirmed with Mr A that he was back on the ENT list for an appointment. However, PALS could not say where on the list he was. In other words, whether he was nearer the top of the list to be seen quickly, or near the bottom.
26. The Trust explained that the confusion was due to a delay in updating Mr A’s ENT referral in its system. It said PALS had taken prompt action to restore Mr A’s position on the list. However, the delay in updating the referral meant the ENT department provided Mr A with the wrong information (that he had been removed from the list).
27. The Trust’s actions are also not in line with Our Principles of Good Administration. The Trust did not update the relevant records for Mr A to reflect that it had reinstated Mr A on the list for an ENT appointment.
28. As a result, the Trust’s communication with Mr A was not as effective as it could have been. The Trust advised Mr A it would reinstate him but received communication on the contrary. There are indications of failings here. We will address the impact of these indicated failings below.
Impact
29. Mr A is concerned that due to the Trust’s errors regarding the appointment, he has been suffering longer than necessary with his ENT issues. He thinks the Trust would have listed him for surgery sooner if the mistake had not happened.
30. Mr A says he has been caused distress because of the Trust telling him different things, about whether he had been re-listed or not. He says it was very overwhelming for him. He says this distress and feeling overwhelmed also exacerbated the symptoms he also experiences due to having ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), anxiety and depression.
31. We understand the Trust giving Mr A conflicting information about the appointment was distressing. We recognise the mistakes here have caused Mr A to worry about the time taken to have an appointment, and whether this had caused delays in having treatment. We understand that this experience with the Trust had been stressful for Mr A.
32. Our Principles for Remedy are reflected in the NHS Complaints Standards. This says organisations should offer fair remedies to put things right and identify learning and use it to improve services.
33. It says the first step is to provide a meaningful apology. The remedy should return the person affected to the position they would have been if the failing had not happened. If this is not possible, a financial remedy should be provided that compensates them appropriately.
34. In its response to Mr A’s complaint, the Trust apologised and acknowledged the errors in its actions regarding the appointment, and its communication with Mr A. It also recognised the distress its actions caused Mr A. The Trust explained that it had stopped its process of removing patients from waiting list due to missed calls. It said that it is also committed to improving its communication practices to ensure any confusion does not happen again.
35. The Trust has confirmed with us that it has placed Mr A on its surgery waiting list in the place he would have been had the errors not happened. This is one of the outcomes Mr A told us he wanted. We think this puts things right for Mr A in terms on his ongoing clinical care, and the Trust’s actions are in line with our NHS Complaints Standards.
36. As set out in paragraph 31, we recognise Mr A experienced distress, anxiety and stress as a result of the Trust’s error. We considered whether the Trust should award Mr A a financial remedy in recognition of this emotional impact.
37. We think a payment of £180 from the Trust is enough to put things right here, to recognise the impact its actions had on Mr A. The Trust has agreed to make this payment to resolve the complaint. We will ask the Trust to make this payment within four weeks of the date of this statement.