University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust

3. Mrs B complains about aspects of the care University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust (the Trust) provided to her husband, Mr B, in 2023 and 2024. Specifically, she complains that:

• his doctor discharged him from the heart clinic in November 2023, even though the appointment was over the phone, so he could not be examined, and they did not have the results of his most recent echocardiogram (echo) • doctors at Leicester Royal Infirmary (LRI) did not arrange for an echo to be carried out during his admission in June to August 2024, even though his hospital admission prevented him from attending a planned outpatient echo • doctors were too slow to treat his worsening heart failure during the same admission • doctors discharged him to Rutland Memorial Hospital (RMH) for rehabilitation in July 2024, even though he was too unwell for rehabilitation and returned to LRI the next day.

4. She also complains that the Trust communicated poorly with her husband and her. She says staff failed to explain to her husband he was dying, would not tell them what he could safely eat in his final days, and did not tell him they had decided he should not be resuscitated if his heart stopped.

5. Mrs B says because the Trust missed opportunities to identify and treat her husband’s worsening heart failure, he may not have died in August 2024 or been so unwell. She adds that he endured two unnecessary transfers while very unwell, which was stressful for him and for her. She explains the poor communication contributed to their distress at a difficult time. In particular, her husband learned about his resuscitation status because he overheard a conversation. She says this upset him and deprived him of his opportunity to explain his views.

6. Mrs B is seeking and apology, service improvements and financial compensation.

9. 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. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed but whether it would be a reasonable option to look in to.

10. Mrs B complains, in part, that failings in her husband’s care caused his premature death.

11. Alongside the great emotional impact Mrs B suffered due to her bereavement, she also told us she has been affected financially. This is due to the loss of her husband’s pension income. While she does not want to put a value on his life, she is seeking a significant financial remedy.

12. Mrs B has started to explore legal action and has learned that there is a possible legal route available to achieve her desired outcome of financial remedy for the most serious issues she has brought to us. Specifically, she may be able to make a bereavement claim under the Fatal Accidents Act (1976) as the widow of Mr B. As the beneficiary and executor of Mr B’s estate, she may also be able to make a clinical negligence claim on behalf of his estate.

13. It is therefore reasonable Mrs B continues to explore this legal action given the serious nature of her concerns, the significant impact she is claiming and the financial compensation she is seeking. As she is already doing this, we can reasonably say there are no barriers to her taking legal action.

14. We also do not wish to deny Mrs B the opportunity to take legal action within the three-year limitation for legal action by considering her complaint.

15. If someone seeks a mix of outcomes, some of which they cannot achieve through legal action, we still consider if it is appropriate for someone to pursue a claim. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed, only whether it would be a reasonable option to explore.

16. Outcomes like acknowledgement of errors, apologies, and service improvements may also be achieved indirectly through legal action. While a court cannot typically recommend such outcomes, an organisation may take those actions to avoid similar legal claims in future.

17. Based on what Mrs B told us, it is clear financial remedy is important and will have a significant impact on her life. We appreciate she has been through a traumatic experience, and we do not wish to add to this.

18. In summary, we consider it is reasonable for Mrs B to continue to pursue a legal remedy. We think it is important for Mrs B to be fully aware of what legal action may be able to achieve for her, particularly in light of the financial impact she describes. She can return to our service if she has outstanding outcomes we can achieve following legal action.

19. If Mrs B chooses to bring the complaint back to us, we would advise she does so as promptly as possible. This is because we have a one-year time-limit by which to consider complaints (from the day a person became aware of their reason to complain).

20. We have discretion to set this time-limit to one side if there are strong reasons to do so. We will consider the time it has taken us to consider the complaint and any other delays outside of her control.

21. We are very sorry to hear of the circumstances of Mr B’s death. When we spoke with Mrs B it was clear Mr B was cherished by his family and friends, and his sad loss impacted them all.

1. We have carefully considered Mrs B’s complaint about the Trust. We consider Mrs B could take legal action on the matter she has brought to us.

2. We are sorry to learn Mrs B is concerned Trust staff missed opportunities to understand how ill her husband was and to treat his heart failure sooner. We recognise she is uncertain about whether her husband could have had a better outcome.