Shared complaint information.
16. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any indications that something has gone wrong with part of Dr D’s complaint.
17. Dr D attended a complaint meeting in May 2025. After the meeting the Trust transferred her care to another hospital within the same Trust to continue her care and treatment. The transfer to another hospital was at Dr D’s request.
18. Dr D attended her next appointment at the new hospital in June 2025. During the appointment the doctor apologised to Dr D for her recent experience. When Dr D questioned how they knew about the complaint, the doctor said she had discussed her complaint with the previous hospital.
19. Dr D said the Trust acted inappropriately by discussing her complaint with the new doctor.
20. In June 2025, the Trust emailed Dr D and said that it acknowledged her concerns about the Trust’s communication. The Trust said it would share her concerns appropriately.
21. In July 2025, in the Trust’s final response, it said there is nothing further it will do about her complaint and directed her to us.
22. From the evidence we have seen, the doctor that was taking over Dr D’s care asked the complaint team about her complaint, before her initial appointment. The Trust told us the doctor requested this so that they could answer any questions Dr D might have and refer to the complaint response, if necessary.
23. We have seen the Trust’s complaint team told the doctor the complaint meeting was only available as an audio recording, and it would not be typed up. It did share a cover letter, included a summary of the meeting, with the new doctor for background information.
24. Dr D is concerned the Trust should not have communicated internally discussing her complaint with her new doctor.
25. GMC good medical practice explains the expectations around communicating as a medical professional. It says doctors have a responsibility to make sure any information they communicate is accurate not false or misleading. This means they must take reasonable steps to check the information is accurate.
26. From what we have seen the communication was appropriate and professional. The emails between the hospitals contained accurate information about Dr D complaint and the information the complaints teams shared was minimal and relevant to the request.
27. We consider this information sharing in line with GMC good medical practice. As the Trust acted in line with guidance, we have seen no signs anything went wrong. This means we will not look at this part of the complaint any further.
28. We recognise Dr D told us this has been a difficult experience for her, we hope our review of the information exchange helps reassure her the Trust’s actions were in line with guidance.
Clinical letter referring to Dr D’s complaint about the Trust
29. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the events complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right. Having done so, we have decided the Trust has already done enough to put right the impact in this part of Dr D’s complaint.
30. After Dr D’s appointment in June 2025 at the new hospital, she received a clinic letter which mentioned the complaint meeting. Dr D contacted the Trust and asked the Trust to remove this reference from the letter.
31. The Trust provided Dr D with a new clinic letter and said the original letter had been removed from hospital records. After Dr D received the new clinic letter, she requested the Trust amended it again. Dr D said she did not agree to the Trust referring to one of the doctors as being ‘supportive’ in the amended clinic letter. In her view this was not accurate.
32. The Trust said it was unable to change this wording, as it was the view of the doctor.
33. PHSO complaints standards explains documents relating to a complaint investigation should be stored securely and kept separately from medical records or other patient records. This is to give individuals an equal opportunity when being treated, and to avoid conflict of interest.
34. From the evidence we have seen, the initial clinic letter was not written in line with this guidance.
35. Dr D told us that she found the whole experience retraumatising and she no longer trusts medical professionals. We recognise the error with the letter caused Dr D distress and concern.
36. We have seen the Trust quickly amended the clinic letter and removed the reference to the complaint from Dr D’s medical records. Because of this, we cannot link this error to an ongoing distrust in medical professionals or a significant level of distress. Overall, we have seen this distress was of short duration.
37. Dr D told us she is seeking an explanation, service improvements and financial remedy as an outcome of bringing her complaint to us.
38. PHSO principles for remedy say an appropriate range of remedies may include an apology, explanation and acknowledgment of responsibility and remedial action.
39. The Trust has apologised and taken steps to return Dr D’s records to the state they should have been in had the error not occurred. This is in keeping with our guidance and what we usually expect to see.
40. We consider this to be a satisfactory outcome. The Trust recognised the error and took responsibility for it. The Trust apologised and removed the original letter from Dr D’s medical records. We are satisfied the Trust acted on Dr D’s concerns regarding the clinic letter.
41. Next we considered if we think the Trust should have looked at a financial remedy.
42. Our severity of injustice scale identifies a level one injustice as annoyance, frustration, worry or inconvenience typically arising from a single (one-off) incidence of maladministration or service failing, where the effect is of short duration.
43. This description is in keeping with what we have set out we have seen in this complaint. The scale does not recommend a financial remedy at this level.
44. We understand Dr D is looking for a financial remedy. We do not feel this is appropriate, for this level of injustice.
45. We are satisfied the Trust has done enough to put things right. We will not consider this part of the complaint further
Complaint about the clinic letter
46. Dr D first raised her concerns about the doctor’s letter in April 2025. The Trust responded to her complaint in May 2025. When the Trust provided its response it gave the details of the Ombudsman, if Dr D remained unhappy.
47. Between June and July 2025, Dr D continued to communicate with the Trust about her complaint concerns. During this time, she did not bring her concerns to the Ombudsman.
48. In July 2025, the Trust told her all future correspondence relating to her complaint would be filed but not responded to, as the Trust had already addressed everything in full.
49. STH policy says if the subject matter of the complaint has previously been investigated under the Trust’s complaint procedure, then it does not need to consider the complaint for a second time.
50. Dr D says she is unhappy the Trust refused to provide her with a complaint response to her further complaints.
51. We have considered the response from the Trust. We can see in May 2025 it has provided a response to the concerns Dr D raised and it is not required to provide any further responses to the same complaint.
52. From what we have seen, we are satisfied that the Trust acted in line with its policy in its response to Dr D. As there are no signs anything went seriously wrong with its complaint handling, we will not look at this part of the complaint any further.
53. As set out above, we have now considered the Trust’s actions regarding this complaint (about the information contained in the clinic letter). We hope this reassures Dr D.
54. We recognise how difficult it is to make a complaint. We would like to thank Dr D for bringing her concerns to us.