The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust

5. Ms C complains about aspects of care and treatment the Trust provided to her father, Mr C, between 10 March 2024 and 14 April 2024.

6. Ms C specifically complains the Trust did not: • review the clinical records, as soon as possible, in order to establish a medical history • listen to the concerns the family had about Mr C’s presenting symptoms • consider the entirety of the symptoms when formulating a diagnosis and proposing treatment • provide a suitable diagnosis and treatment as soon as possible.

7. Ms C says because the Trust did not listen to the family’s concerns, did not consider the medical history and the presenting symptoms as soon as possible, led to a delay in diagnosis.

8. Ms C says this delay diagnosis led to unnecessary pain, distress and uncertainty.

9. Ms C is seeking an apology, service improvements and a financial remedy at level six on our Severity of Injustice scale.

Diagnosis, treatment and care

12. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has the option to take legal action, unless we consider this is (or was) unreasonable in the circumstances. We have discussed this with Ms Rafiq to understand her circumstances and the outcomes she wants. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed but whether it would be a reasonable option to look in to.

13. Ms C told us the Trust did not take all into account her father’s medical history, symptoms presented during admission or the symptoms the family described when reaching a diagnosis. She details due to this, an appropriate investigation had not been carried out and the diagnosis of discitis (an infection of the intervertebral disc of the spine) was delayed by five weeks.

14. Sadly, Mr C died in June 2024 of discitis abscess, sepsis and acute kidney injury.

15. We consider Ms C may have a potential clinical negligence claim available to her, because she describes the actions of the Trust led to delayed diagnosis and treatment which in turn led to her father’s death.

16. Ms C told us she is concerned about the financial burden of a legal claim.

17. We consider no win no fee is only one of many options available for those who may struggle to fund court action. There are other funding streams available for example, house insurance policies may include legal cover and offer the opportunity to fund a claim.

18. Ms C also told us she is concerned about the length of time a legal claim would take and the psychological impact on her.

19. We consider a solicitor would be able to act in Ms C’s interests and ‘be on her side’. Furthermore, a solicitor would be able to offer legal advice and assistance targeted to her specific circumstances and would be able to assist her with any stress you felt about a legal process

20. Ms C is seeking a financial remedy of over £12,500.

21. If the person is claiming a serious injustice, then it is likely to be a higher value and more suitable for legal route to consider. Ms C had reasons to complain in March 2024, as such, she is within the three-year statutory time limit to pursue clinical negligence claim.

22. It is reasonable to suggest Ms C explores this now while there is still time and could be more likely to achieve a financial remedy she would be satisfied with.

23. We consider Ms C has a cause of action in clinical negligence it is reasonable for her to pursue this further by seeking legal advice from a few law firms. This is because of the seriousness of the injustice she is claiming and is important she fully explores her options while she is well within the three-year time limit.

24. Based on all the above, we cannot see anything preventing Ms C from exploring whether legal action is available to her. This could include via free legal services such as Action Against Medical Accidents (AVMA) or no win, no fee solicitors. If her circumstances change and it becomes clear it would no longer be reasonable for her to pursue a legal action, she could come back to us and ask us to investigate a complaint.

25. We are aware Ms C has told us that, alongside financial redress, she should like the Trust to apologise and make service improvements. Apologies and service improvements can be the bi–product of successful legal action. As such, Ms C may be able to achieve these other outcomes as a bi-product of legal action.

26. Furthermore, if Ms C were to return to us after unsuccessfully taking legal action, we could consider the complaint about any matters that the court could not look at for her, or any outcomes that it could not have directly achieved for her. Ms C is aware she will need to do this as soon as possible, given we have strict time limits on complaints we can investigate.

27. We consider Ms C has legal route available to her and it is reasonable for her to pursue it. Therefore, we will take no further action.

28. We recognise Ms C is grieving the loss of her father and we acknowledge she wants the Trust to take the responsibility for what has happened. We appreciate the time Ms C took to bring this complaint to us and we thank her for the time she took to discuss with us the events that led to this complaint.

1. We offer Ms C our deepest condolences for the loss of her father. We recognise the loss of her father and the events that took place during the last admission had a profound impact on her.

2. Ms C told us she is of the view her father’s death would have been avoidable had the correct diagnosis and treatment been made in a timely manner.

3. We have carefully considered Ms C’s complaint about the Trust and we are of the view Ms C could take legal action on the aspects she has brought to us.

4. As such, we found Ms C has the option to consider making a clinical negligence claim in respect to the treatment and care her father received from the Trust.