NHS in England Closed After Initial Enquiries Search on PHSO website

Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust

P-004706 · Statement · Decision date: 28 January 2026 · View Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust scorecard
Communication Diagnosis Care plan failures
Complaint (AI summary)
Miss U complained the Trust failed to inform her mother of cancer recurrence symptoms and inadequately monitored her, causing delayed detection of secondary cancer and her death.
Outcome (AI summary)
The ombudsman found a failing in not informing Mrs R of symptoms, but it had no clinical impact. The Trust's monitoring was appropriate, and it agreed to address the distress caused.

Full decision details

The Complaint

6. Miss U complains about aspects of care and treatment Guy's and St Thomas’s NHS Foundation Trust provided to her mother, Mrs R, from September 2020. Specifically, she complains it did not inform her mother of the symptoms to look out for, following her cancer treatment, in the event her cancer may return. She feels it did not adequately monitor her post-treatment.

7. Miss U says this caused her mother’s secondary cancer, to not be detected as early as it could have been. She says in turn, this led to her mother’s death as there were no viable treatment options when it was detected. She says this has also caused her and family significant distress.

8. By bringing the complaint to us, Miss U seeks financial redress and service improvements.

Background

9. This brief background is only intended to place the key events in context, not to provide a full account of everything that happened.

10. In February 2019, the Trust diagnosed Mrs R with left breast cancer.

11. On 5 September 2019, Mrs R underwent breast surgery following neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (cancer treatment which is often given before surgery). The surgery removed Mrs R’s entire left breast tissue. The surgery was for a grade three invasive breast cancer (the cancer cells look very different from normal cells, which grow and spread quickly and considered aggressive).

12. On 13 September 2019, an oncoplastic breast surgeon at the Trust reviewed Mrs R. It confirmed the invasive tumour had been removed. They noted the wounds were healing well and they referred her to the plastic surgeons for consideration of a delayed reconstruction.

13. On 1 September 2020, Mrs R underwent a left breast delayed reconstruction (a procedure which creates a new breast shape using tissue taken from the patients back).

14. On 16 September 2020, Mrs R had a follow-up telephone consultation with the breast department at the Trust. Mrs R reported she felt well, and her wound was healing well. A right breast mammogram was done which came back normal. So, the Trust added her to the breast remote monitoring surveillance programme. As part of this, staff at the Trust call patients for regular mammograms. In Mrs R’s case, it was her right side only. It also allows patients to have direct access to the Breast Surgery department through a helpline, in case of any concerns or questions.

15. The Trust conducted mammograms on Mrs R on 14 October 2020, 12 November 2021, 11 November 2022 and 10 November 2023.

16. In April 2024, Mrs R was diagnosed (at a different Trust) with stage four metastatic cancer (cancer cells which have spread from the breast to distant parts of the body such as bones, liver, lungs or brain). In

17. On 23 May Miss U contacted the Trust to cancel her mother’s future appointments at the Trust. She explained Mrs R was a patient at a separate organisation for her metastatic disease. The Trust cancelled the mammogram for November 2024.

18. On 14 June Mrs R sadly died.

Findings

Communication 22. NICE guidance on breast cancer management says at 1.15.4 ‘ensure all people who have had treatment for breast cancer have an agreed, written care plan, recorded in their notes’. It says the plan should include signs and symptoms to look out for and seek advice on.

23. NLM information mentions guidance from American Society of Clinical Oncology, for breast cancer surveillance. Our adviser confirmed this is relevant guidance.

24. It suggests explaining to patients the most common spots of recurrence of breast cancer. The symptoms are ‘lumps or bumps anywhere but especially on the breast or chest wall – bones that hurt without trauma, especially the spine or hips – headaches out the ordinary – shortness of breath, especially if receiving tamoxifen (a type of drug used to treat breast cancer) – leg swelling, especially if receiving tamoxifen’.

25. The records show that Mrs R had a telephone appointment with an advanced nurse practitioner at the Trust on 16 September 2020. The appointment took place following her breast cancer treatment.

26. During the appointment, Mrs R reported feeling well. Mrs R had a right breast mammogram, which came back unchanged. The Trust then added her to its remote breast cancer surveillance programme. The programme meant it would recall Mrs R for mammograms yearly, until she had completed five years.

27. We have found nothing in the records to show that the Trust gave Mrs R advice on the symptoms to look out for, following her cancer treatment.

28. The Trust acknowledged in its response letter that it did not arrange an end-of-treatment consultation with Mrs R. It said it did not remind Mrs R of the symptoms of disease recurrence. It explained this was likely due to the pandemic, which led to cancelling some appointments and its clinics were reduced.

29. We consider this an indication of a failing, as the Trust did not follow the guidance noted above. We will explore the impact of this later in this report.

Monitoring 30. NICE guidance on breast cancer management says at 1.15.1 ‘offer annual mammography for five years to all people who have had or are being treated for breast cancer’.

31. The Trust arranged for Mrs R to have yearly mammograms. During Mrs R’s appointments between September 2020 and November 2023, there is no evidence within the records that she reported any concerns during her appointments.

32. Our adviser helped us understand that Mrs R’s mammogram results were normal and indicated no sign that her cancer had returned during this time. Their view, which we agree with, is it is likely Mrs R’s metastatic breast cancer began suddenly between November 2023 and April 2024.

33. Miss U is concerned her mother reported back pain to the GP, which may have indicated her cancer returned. She is concerned the Trust should have monitored her better, and it could have detected cancer earlier.

34. The GP records show that Mrs R reported symptoms such as aching legs in May 2022. An MRI scan of the spine showed degenerative disease (conditions causing the gradual, progressive deterioration of tissue or organ structure and function. It is often linked to aging, genetics or lifestyle). In July 2022, Mrs R complained of abdominal pain which the GP treated with antibiotics for a urinary tract infection. This then cleared following treatment.

35. Mrs R had routine blood tests at the GP Practice in December 2022, December 2023 and 15 January 2024. Our adviser helped us understand the blood test results did not indicate Mrs R’s cancer had returned.

36. Our view, on the balance of probabilities, is Mrs R’s secondary cancer developed between November 2023 and April 2024. This is because the latest mammogram result from November 2023, was normal. We consider there is also nothing in the GP records to suggest it developed earlier than this.

37. We think the Trust adequately monitored Mrs R. It arranged yearly mammograms, in line with NICE guidance above. The guidance does not mention any other tests which should be performed. We therefore will not take any further action on this.

38. We recognise Miss U’s concerns caused her and her family significant distress. We do not wish to underestimate how difficult this time was for them. We hope our decision can provide some reassurance.

Impact 39. We consider there is an indication of a failing, as the Trust should have informed Mrs R of the symptoms to look out for post cancer treatment.

40. Miss U says her mother was unaware the symptoms she had (such as back pain), was a symptom to look out for. Miss U is concerned her mother’s cancer was not detected as early as it could have been. This is because her mother would have likely sought medical advice, if she had known. She has concerns it led to her dying prematurely.

41. Frontiers in Oncology’s review found no evidence a remote surveillance programme had any effect on overall survival. We consider this indicates it is unlikely there was any clinical impact on Mrs R.

42. NICE guidance on breast cancer management recommends yearly mammograms. We can see that the Trust arranged this. As outlined earlier in our report, the results do not indicate that her cancer had returned.

43. We have not found any indication Mrs R reported concerning symptoms during this time, which the Trust did not act upon. For example, we have found no mention of her reporting back pain to the Trust.

44. We think it is likely Mrs R’s cancer returned between November 2023 and April 2024. The Trust was not due to review Mrs R again until November 2024.

45. Our adviser’s view, which we share, is there is no evidence that the sad outcome would have changed.

46. Miss U also explained due to this, her and her family experienced significant distress. We think it caused distress to them, as they would have been concerned about the care Mrs R received, at an already difficult and distressing time. We are sorry to hear how this impacted them.

Remedy 47. As an outcome of her complaint, Miss U is seeking service improvements and financial redress.

48. Our service model guidance sets out how we consider cases. It says, at 3.59 ‘resolution means delivering an answer or outcome for a complainant that resolves the complaint they have brought to us’.

49. Our Principles for Remedy are reflected in the NHS Complaint Standards. This says organisations should offer fair remedies to put things right and identify learning and use it to improve services.

50. The Trust already provided some service improvements as a result of Miss U’s complaint. It said the clinic has now re-introduced end-of-treatment appointments and provide patients with information regarding what to expect from their follow up care and any symptoms to look out for.

51. We approached the Trust to ask if it could provide evidence of the above. We asked it to provide an action plan on how the Trust has, or is going to, ensure the same thing does not happen again. It has agreed to do this. We will ask it to do this within three months of the date of this statement.

52. We asked the Trust to consider a financial remedy to Miss U. To assist us in considering an appropriate level of financial remedy, we used our severity of injustice scale (our scale). We also review similar cases where the person has experienced a similar impact.

53. Level two on our scale covers instances where there are ‘minor failures in communication which caused a small degree of distress or worry against a background of bereavement’.

54. We consider this appropriately reflects the impact on Miss U. This is because they had concerns following Mrs R’s death, that the outcome could have been different, if they were informed of the symptoms to look out for. We think this added to her and her family’s bereavement.

55. We approached the Trust to ask if it would consider providing a resolution to Miss U in line with this. It has agreed to provide a financial remedy of £300 in keeping with level two on our scale. We will ask the Trust to make this payment within one month of the date of this statement.

56. At section 3.60 of our service model guidance, it says ‘it is for us, and not the person bringing the complaint to us, to decide whether the actions taken have resolved the complaint’. We consider the above actions from the Trust are sufficient to resolve Miss U’s complaint.

Conclusion 57. We thank Miss U for bringing her complaint to us. We are truly sorry to hear about this difficult time and offer our sincere condolences on the sad loss of Mrs R.

58. We hope Miss U can be reassured that the Trust has taken steps to ensure it has learnt from this and provided an appropriate remedy. We also hope it provides some reassurance that we think the Trust appropriately monitored her mother.

Our Decision

1. We have carefully considered Miss U’s complaint about Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). We are sorry to hear of the sad loss of her mother, Mrs R. We understand this was, and continues to be, a very difficult time for Miss U and family.

2. The Trust did not inform Mrs R of the symptoms to look out for, post cancer treatment. We think this indicates a failing.

3. We do not think this led to a clinical impact. We think it caused Miss U and family significant distress. Our reasoning will be explained later in our report.

4. We consider the Trust appropriately monitored Mrs R post cancer treatment, as it conducted yearly mammograms (an X-ray of the breast used to detect cancer early).

5. We have undertaken conversations with the Trust, about it not informing Mrs R of the symptoms to look out for. It has agreed to take steps to put right the impact on Miss U. We consider the Trust’s actions will resolve the complaint.

Other Decisions About Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust

P-004974 · 4 Mar 2026
Mr A complains about the care his son, C, received from the Trust in 2023. He says the Trust failed …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-004893 · 24 Feb 2026
Ms P complains about the care she received from the Trust in 2020 and between August 2023 and December 2023. …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-004753 · 30 Jan 2026
An NHS Trust discharged a patient before they were medically fit, failed to carry out an occupational health assessment, did …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-004749 · 30 Jan 2026
Mr A complains about the care provided to his wife, Mrs B, by Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust …
Not Upheld
P-004608 · 13 Jan 2026
Mrs S is complaining that she should have received laser treatment.
Closed After Initial Enquiries
View all decisions for this organisation →