3. Mr R complains that the Trust: • failed to detect abnormalities on his chest X-ray from February 2024 • delayed conducting cardiology investigations given what this X-ray showed.
4. Mr R says as a result he experienced a lot of distress.
5. Mr R would like an apology and a financial remedy.
6. Following a chest infection which began at the end of 2023, Mr R had a chest X-ray at the Trust in February 2024. The Trust concluded there were no significant abnormalities on the X-ray.
7. Mr R complained to the Trust about this in March and asked it to conduct cardiology investigations. The Trust reviewed the X-ray in a meeting in April where it once again concluded there were no significant abnormalities. In the same month Mr R’s GP requested the Trust conduct a repeat chest X-ray for Mr R. It did so and concluded the second X-ray was also normal with no concerns or significant abnormalities.
8. Later in April the Trust had a meeting where radiologists reviewed the X-rays and decided there was nothing of concern in these scans. A radiologist is a doctor who interprets scan images to help other doctors understand what is happening inside a patient’s body.
9. Mr R had an echocardiogram (heart scan) in May which showed the top left and right chambers of his heart were enlarged. Mr R’s GP urgently referred Mr R to the Trust’s cardiology team due to low heart rate, tiredness and dizziness. A cardiologist is a doctor who specialises in diagnosing and treating heart conditions.
10. In 2025 the Trust completed several cardiology investigations to look at the functioning of Mr R’s heart. The Trust decided he did not need treatment or any follow up.
14. Mr R complains the Trust failed to detect abnormalities on his chest X-ray taken in February 2024. He is concerned that because the Trust missed things, this meant it delayed conducting cardiology investigations.
15. Mr R told us his friend, who is a doctor specialising in heart conditions, reviewed his X-ray. He explains they had concerns about his heart and recommended he needed further tests.
16. The Trust reviewed Mr R’s chest X-ray and said it was completely normal. It identified no significant abnormalities.
17. We have considered the actions of the radiologist in producing the X-ray report. To help our consideration of Mr R’s case we sought independent clinical advice from our adviser who is a radiologist. They reviewed Mr R’s X-ray and explained the right side of Mr R’s diaphragm appears to be slightly raised. They said it is likely something he was born with.
18. They told us it is not something a radiologist would write in a chest X-ray report, unless there is a specific concern about an injury to the diaphragm. They told us they are not aware of any guidelines on reporting this abnormality. They did not identify any other concerns in Mr R’s February 2024 X-ray which the Trust needed to include on the report.
19. We acknowledge Mr R’s views on this matter and he has clearly told us how distressing this situation has been for him.
20. We have not seen indications of failings in the Trust’s chest X-ray report.
21. As the report found no abnormalities, the Trust did not refer Mr R for further tests. The GMC says doctors must promptly arrange investigations where necessary. So, further investigations are not needed in all cases and this is up to clinical judgement.
22. We recognise Mr R has since gone on to have further tests. The Trust identified no significant abnormalities based on the information it had in February 2024.
23. Our adviser also reviewed this independently and raised no concerns with the Trust’s findings. On this basis, we cannot say there was anything in the X-ray that should have prompted it to arrange further tests. Therefore, we do not propose to take any action on this complaint. We hope we have explained our decision clearly.
1. We have carefully considered Mr R’s complaint about the Trust. We have seen no indication of failings in the Trust’s interpretation of Mr R’s chest X-ray in February 2024 or its decision not to conduct cardiology investigations following this X-ray.
2. We understand Mr R disagrees with the Trust’s reading of the X-ray and does not think his GP should have had to insist on cardiology investigations on his behalf. We are sorry to hear how distressing this situation has been for Mr R.