South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust

7. Mr O complains about aspects of the care and treatment he received at South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). Specifically, he says on 9 December 2022 during surgery a surgeon used an incorrect type of stitch (a non-absorbable suture) and did not inform him about the stitch following surgery.

8. He says this resulted in three infections and further surgery taking place in June 2023.

9. As a result of complaining to us, Mr O is seeking:

• acknowledgement of failings •apology •service improvements •financial redress for loss of wages (£1,450) and level four on our SOI scale (£1,250 - £3,700) for emotional distress.”

10. On 7 December 2022 Mr O attended the Emergency Department (ED) at the Trust, due to experiencing abdominal pain. He was examined, the Trust diagnosed him with gastritis (when the lining of the stomach becomes inflamed), gave him treatment and discharged him.

11. The Trust saw Mr O again on 8 December. He attended ED again and it diagnosed him with appendicitis (a sudden inflammation and infection of the appendix) and admitted him to a hospital ward.

12. On 9 December the Trust undertook surgery on Mr O to treat his appendicitis. He underwent a laparoscopy appendectomy (a minimally invasive surgical procedure to remove the appendix through several small incisions in the abdomen using a thin, tube-like instrument with a light and camera). The surgeon used a nurolon suture (also known as a nonabsorbable stitch).

13. On 14 December the Trust discharged Mr O from hospital.

14. Mr O attended the Trust on 7 and 13 June 2023. He reported discharge from his belly button for around two to three weeks. The Trust carried out an ultrasound scan which identified it was likely he had a retained stitch with infection.

15. On 21 June the Trust carried out further surgery on Mr O due to the infection which involved excision of the umbilical sinus. This is a surgical procedure to remove the infected area and surrounding tissue in or near the belly button. Surgery also involved removing the non-absorbable suture.

16. On 23 August 2023 the Trust examined Mr O post-surgery and found his wound had healed successfully.

1. Our finding is the Trust should not have used a non-absorbable suture (a type of stitch that does not dissolve in the body) during Mr O’s surgery on 9 December 2022.

2. We think it led to the possible loss of opportunity for a better clinical outcome for him. This is because he had to undergo a second surgery. We consider this may have not happened if the surgeon used an absorbable suture (stitches the body can naturally break down and absorb over time).

3. We have not found a link from the failing to the full impact Mr O outlined. This is because we cannot say the wound became infected due to the type of stitch used. There are always risks of infection due to the type of procedure he underwent.

4. We have not found the Trust should have informed Mr O about the type of stitch used. Our finding is this is not a failing.

5. We recommend the Trust puts service improvements into place to prevent the failing happening again, acknowledge it should not have used a non-absorbable stitch, apologise to Mr O, and pay him £600.

6. We are therefore partly upholding Mr O’s complaint. Our findings are detailed below.