Discharged from waiting list
23. 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.
24. We have done this and have not found any indications that something has gone seriously wrong with this part of Mr T’s complaint.
25. Mr T was on the waiting list for an ACL reconstruction knee surgery from 1 February 2023. He says during this time he experienced significant pain and discomfort.
26. On 1 August the Trust offered to complete the surgery on 27 September or 11 October. Mr T says he explained to the Trust these dates were not suitable as he needed to care for his pregnant wife who was due to deliver at that time.
27. Mr T disputes it was appropriate for the Trust to discharged him from the waiting list for this reason.
28. The NWL policy says: ‘some patients decline offered admission dates because they want treatment to fit around personal or social plans. If a patient says they will be unavailable for more than 8 weeks, the clinical team must review their situation. After this review, the patient may be sent back to their GP with advice, and their waiting time clock will stop, unless the consultant believes this would not be in the patient’s best medical interests’.
29. We can see when the Trust offered Mr T surgery dates in September and October 2024 Mr T, understandably told the Trust he was not available at that time and that he would not be available until February 2025.
30. We appreciate Mr T’s reasons for delaying the surgery were outside of his control. We also recognise the Trust has complex and lengthy waiting lists to manage and it must have appropriate policies in place to support this.
31. As Mr T told the Trust he was not available for more than eight weeks, we are satisfied the Trust acted in line with its policy when it discharged him from its service and referred him back to his GP.
32. We understand it was frustrating for Mr T to experience a further wait, particularly given the discomfort he was in. We recognise it was difficult managing his injury with a newborn child.
33. We have seen the Trust acted in line with guidance. For this reason, we will not be considering this part of his complaint any further.
Complaint handling
34. Mr T says the Trust did not handle his complaint properly. He says it failed to answer the phone or respond to his emails and acknowledge the seriousness of his concerns. Consequently, he remains dissatisfied by its complaint response.
35. The Trust recognised Mr T’s difficulty in getting through, apologised that staff were unhelpful when he did reach them, and offered an apology for staff conduct.
36. NHS complaint standards state staff should ensure to welcome complaints. They should actively listen and demonstrate a clear understanding of what the main issues of the complaint are.
37. Considering Mr T’s account and the Trust’s acknowledgement of Mr T’s experience, we have seen signs the Trust has not acted in line with the guidance. Where we see signs something has gone wrong, we look at whether there are signs the Trust has also taken appropriate steps to put right any impact of these events.
38. Mr T told us he felt ignored and dismissed by the Trust. We were sorry to hear about Mr T’s experience.
39. PHSO GCH say organisations should consider remedies such as an acknowledgement, apology and service improvements. It also says financial remedy should be considered in situations where the complainant cannot be returned to the position they were in before the failing happened.
40. The Trust has acted in line with this guidance in apologising, taking learning from this complaint and reminding its staff on the importance of always being professional.
41. As Mr T is seeking a financial remedy we looked to our guidance see if this is justified.
42. The level of distress Mr T has experienced is in keeping with level one of our guidance. This says the person affected has experienced a low impact injustice such as a frustration, worry or inconvenience, of short duration and where there are no other adverse effects or ongoing wider impact.
43. There is no financial remedy recommendation for a level one injustice.
44. Overall, we have seen the Trust has already acted in line with our guidance and done enough to identify and put right the impact of its complaint handling. For this reason, there is nothing further we could add by considering this part of his complaint further.
45. We appreciate this was a very difficult time for Mr T. We hope this explanation gives him reassurance that his complaint has been thoroughly considered.