Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

7. Mr A complains about aspects of his care and treatment from the Trust between March 2024 and March 2025. Specifically, he complains he:

• made a subject access request (SAR) for specific documents but was sent documents outside of this • was taken off the waiting list for a knee replacement in June 2024 when he was sent a letter saying his referral was cancelled.

8. Mr A says he was upset, alarmed and distressed when he received documents he was not expecting in his SAR. These included documents saying colon cancer had been diagnosed in 2018, which he says he had not been made aware of. This caused Mr A unnecessary worry and inconvenience and meant he needed to visit his GP to be reassured he did not have colon cancer.

9. Mr A says he was incorrectly taken off the waiting list for is knee replacement. He says he was not put back on the list in the correct position, and this delayed his knee replacement and caused prolonged suffering. He says was also inconvenienced as he had to contact his GP, physiotherapist and the Trust to find out what was happening and to get them to rectify the issue.

10. Mr A would like an apology, acknowledgement and explanation for each aspect of complaint. He would also like service improvements.

11. In October 2023, Mr A was referred to the Trust’s hip and knee team for consideration of a possible knee replacement.

12. The Trust noted it had significant delays for outpatient appointments with its hip and knee team. The Trust checked with Mr A in January and April 2024 to ensure he wished to remain on the waiting list for an appointment with the team at the Trust or if he wished to consider an appointment elsewhere. It offered to explore this on his behalf if so.

13. Mr A explains he had a number of risk factors for surgery, which meant he was not able to explore other providers. He therefore opted to remain on the Trust’s waiting list.

14. At the start of 2024, Mr A made a SAR to the Trust, specifying he wanted documents related to his knee treatments and diagnoses. In March 2024, he received the documents from his SAR, which included documents from 2018 about colon cancer investigations he had previously had. Mr A interpreted these documents as saying he had colon cancer that he had not been told about, which he found upsetting and alarming.

15. Mr A attended his GP about these documents shortly after receiving them, who reassured him the documents did not say he had cancer.

16. At the end of June 2024, Mr A received a letter from the Trust saying his referral for a knee replacement had been cancelled and he was being referred back to physiotherapy. Mr A contacted the Trust, physiotherapy department and his GP to query this and raise concerns as he had been on the waiting list for 30 weeks by this time.

17. The Trust contacted Mr A to apologise and advised the cancellation letter had been sent in error. It reassured Mr A that he had not been removed from the waiting list and remained on this in the same position.

18. Mr A remained unhappy with the Trust’s response and raised further concerns about this. The Trust sent further response letters in June, August and October 2024.

19. During this time, in August 2024, Mr A had his initial appointment with the hip and knee team, who determined a knee replacement was appropriate and referred him for surgery. He advised the department he would not be available for surgery during August and September. The Trust put Mr A on the list for surgery, to take place from October 2024 onwards as per his request.

20. In December 2024, Mr A had unrelated surgery on his right leg. Around this time, the Trust contacted him offering him a pre-surgery assessment clinic appointment for knee replacement surgery to take place before Christmas. Mr A explained he had just had unrelated surgery on the same leg, so it was agreed the knee replacement surgery would be postponed until 2025.

21. In February 2025, Mr A complained to the Trust about the extra documents in his SAR and the concern caused by the reference to colon cancer. The Trust provided its final response to this in March 2025.

22. At the end of February 2025, Mr A underwent his right knee replacement surgery.

23. Mr A brought his complaint to us in May 2025.

26. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the event complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right. Having done so we have found the Trust has already done enough to put right the impact of these events.

SAR request in March 2024

27. Mr A made a SAR request specifically for any information relating to his knee replacement from the Trust at the start of 2024.

28. The Trust sent the records to Mr A in March 2024. Mr A says the Trust sent him records unrelated to his request, including records relating to colon cancer investigations he had in 2018.

29. Mr A says the records relating to colon cancer caused him significant concern, as these suggest he had colon cancer. He contacted his GP who reassured him he did not have cancer. We appreciate it was inconvenient for Mr A to need to go to the GP to confirm this and how alarmed he must have been when he first saw the documents.

30. The Trust provided a full response to this concern in March 2025. This explained that the referral made was for investigations into possible cancer, and the form used was a ‘provisional template’. The Trust acknowledged the word ‘provisional’ was not on the records shared with Mr A and apologised for the concern this had caused.

31. We have considered the Trust’s response and actions in line with our ‘Complaint standards.’ These say organisations should explain why things went wrong and identify suitable ways to put things right for people and give meaningful and sincere apologies and explanations that openly reflect the impact on the people concerned.

32. The Trust apologised that additional information was sent to Mr A as part of his SAR. We can see it took his concerns about the 2018 cancer diagnosis seriously, and sought appropriate input from relevant specialists to explain this and reassure Mr A. The Trust acknowledged the impact of these events on Mr A, and apologised for this.

33. We do not doubt how distressing these events will have been for Mr A. We consider the Trust’s response is thorough and provides relevant information about the clinical concerns raised. We consider the Trust’s actions and response were in line with the above ‘Complaint standards.’

34. We therefore do not see indications any further action is needed on this aspect of complaint.

Knee replacement waiting list

35. Mr A’s physiotherapist referred him to the Trust’s hip and knee team for consideration of a knee replacement in October 2023. Mr A was on the waiting list for an out-patient consultation with an orthopaedic consultant from this time, who would then decide if Mr A was to go on the surgery waiting list.

36. Mr A received a letter from the Trust in June 2024 advising he was being taken off the knee replacement waiting list and referred back to physiotherapy. We do not doubt the distress and concern Mr A experienced at this time, as he had previously been under physiotherapy and had been waiting for some time for his appointment to discuss a possible knee replacement.

37. Mr A complained about these events to the Trust in July 2024. The Trust explained there was an average waiting time of 40 weeks to see an orthopaedic consultant, apologised for this and explained it would review how it communicated the wait time with patients. The response also confirmed Mr A was on the list to be seen by an orthopaedic consultant and gave him his appointment date for August 2024.

38. Mr A saw the orthopaedic consultant as planned in August 2024 and was placed on the waiting list for knee replacement surgery.

39. Mr A sent a further complaint to the Trust in August 2024 saying he was not satisfied with its complaint response and did not consider it had addressed his concerns about having been taken off the waiting list for referral to the hip and knee team.

40. The Trust responded in October 2024 and clarified the letter sent to Mr A in June 2024 was sent in error and reassured him that he had not been taken off the waiting list at any point during this time. This response acknowledged this had caused Mr A stress and inconvenience and explained it had spoken with the administration team to make sure this would not happen again. The Trust apologised again for any confusion caused.

41. We have carefully considered these events to see if we can see evidence to suggest Mr A was inappropriately removed from the waiting list for an appointment with an orthopaedic consultant. We have also considered the actions the Trust has taken as a result of this complaint, in line with our ‘Complaint standards.’ These say organisations should be open and honest when things have gone wrong or where improvements can be made.

42. Mr A was referred to the Trust’s hip and knee team in October 2023 and had his consultant appointment in August 2024. This is a time span of ten months, approximately 40 weeks which matches with the waiting time the Trust described. We can see Mr A was contacted twice during this time to check he still wished to stay on the waiting list, due to long waiting times the Trust was experiencing. It is recorded that Mr A wished to say on the Trust’s waiting list due to his risk factors for surgery.

43. We therefore have seen evidence to suggest the delays in Mr A’s appointment were due to the Trust’s long waiting list, and not as a result of the letter sent in error in June 2024. Mr A’s appointment was not delayed outside of what had been expected. We therefore do not see indications of failings in relation to this aspect of Mr A’s complaint.

44. Mr A was put on the waiting list for surgery in August 2024, following the orthopaedic consultation. The Trust noted Mr A was not able to have the surgery until October 2024, and a date was offered in December 2024. Unfortunately, this was not able to go ahead as Mr A had had unrelated surgery on the same leg, and the surgery went ahead in 2025.

45. Overall, we have not seen indications to suggest the Trust’s June 2024 letter affected Mr A’s position on the waiting list for an orthopaedic consultation, or that this affected the waiting time for the surgery itself.

46. We have next considered the actions the Trust has taken to address the impact of the incorrect June 2024 letter.

47. The Trust’s response acknowledges Mr A’s complaint and how this impacted him, apologises to him and explains how the failings occurred. It also explains how the Trust will make improvements to stop this issue happening again. We consider these actions are appropriate and in line with our ‘Complaint standards.’ We also consider these actions address the outcomes Mr A has brought to us.

48. We therefore consider the Trust has already taken appropriate action to address this aspect of Mr A’s complaint. We therefore do not indications to suggest further action is needed.

Conclusion

49. We recognise the concern, worry and inconvenience these events have caused Mr A. We hope he can see we have considered and balanced this independently and in line with standards, guidance and law.

1. Mr A complains about the actions of Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (the Trust) in relation to the handling of a subject access request (SAR) and the management of his position on the waiting list for a knee replacement.

2. We are sorry to learn of Mr A’s experiences with the Trust. We appreciate the worry and distress these events will have caused him. We thank Mr A for bringing his complaint to us.

3. After carefully considering the evidence available to us, we consider the Trust has already appropriately addressed and explained the concerns raised following the SAR.

4. We also consider the Trust has acknowledged Mr A was sent incorrect information and has reassured him that he was not taken off the waiting list for a knee replacement. We have seen evidence to confirm this information was correct.

5. Overall, we do not see indications to suggest further action is needed in relation to this complaint.

6. We recognise this decision may be disappointing for Mr A, but hope our explanations below assure him evidence has been considered impartially and in line with standards and guidance.