Review of test result
17. In August 2023, wore a Holter monitor for 48 hours as part of the Trust’s investigations into his palpitations and breathing problems. The Trust told him there would be a short wait for the results.
18. Mr H chased the test results repeatedly until June 2024 and was told they had not been looked at yet or did not receive a response. He was still having heart palpitations and breathing problems during this time.
19. Mr H said his symptoms meant he could not do normal, day-to-day things like jobs around the house, gardening, and taking his dog for a short walk. He said he would often have to sit down as he would get so out of breath. He also said he could not play with or take out his grandchildren like he used to which was really upsetting.
20. He said this was very scary for him and his family, particularly his wife and grandchildren, as they were fearful for his health and he might become seriously ill at any point.
21. In May 2024, Mr H had appointments with both his GP and consultant haematologist. He had some tests that showed that he had atrial fibrillation (a common heart condition that causes an irregular and often very fast heart rate). His GP prescribed him with a betablocker (prescription medicines that help the heart beat slower and with less force). Mr H said his symptoms improved within days of starting the new medication.
22. On 5 June 2024, the Trust sent the results from the 48-hour heart test to his GP. The letter from the consultant said the test result showed several episodes of atrial fibrillation and flutter which were very likely causing his symptoms.
23. The Trust apologised for the standard of care it provided Mr H. It said in its complaint responses that it acknowledged the unacceptable delay in reviewing Mr H’s test results, and the distress that would have been caused by the ongoing symptoms Mr H experienced.
24. It also acknowledges the distress it caused due the uncertainty of the long-term consequences of not treating the symptoms. The Trust admitted Mr H was at risk of complications such as left atrial dilation (enlargement of part of the heart), LV impairment (a condition where the heart cannot pump blood effectively), or a stroke while he waited for the test results.
25. The Trust explained it has changed its processes to ensure test results are reviewed in a timely manner. It did not provide detail of what these changes entailed.
26. Mr H said he would like a financial remedy of £2000 due to the suffering he endured while waiting for his test results. The amount Mr H is looking for equates to level four of our severity injustice scale.
27. Our severity of injustice scale says we may recommend a level four remedy where there have been adverse impacts on quality of life lasting in excess of six months, or when someone had a physiological impact such as minor pain for three months to a year. Mr H’s complaint fits the level four criteria for injustice.
Complaint handling
28. On 20 June 2024, Mr H complained to the Trust. On 11 July 2024, the Complaints Team emailed Mr H to acknowledge his complaint. On 13 August 2024, the team emailed Mr H to let him know it was taking longer than expected to investigate his complaint.
29. On 2 November 2024, Mr H chased the Complaints Team about lack of progress and response. On 7 November 2024, the Complaints Team emailed Mr H and said his complaint was in progress. On 20 November 2024, the Trust sent a complaint response to Mr H for his complaint dated 20 June 2024. Mr H did not receive this response and chased the Trust again on 1 January 2025. The Trust then sent Mr H the response again.
30. On 13 January 2025, Mr H wrote to the Trust to say he is not happy with their complaint response. He said it was inaccurate as it stated Mr H’s health had not been impacted by the delayed test result as he had already been started on the correct treatment when he had the test done.
31. The Trust replied to Mr H saying it would review his concerns and get back to him. On 11 March 2025, the Trust emailed Mr H saying it was working on the response and would send it to him in a few weeks. On 1 May 2025, Mr H emailed the Complaints Team about lack of progress and response.
32. On 9 May 2025, the Trust sent its final response letter to Mr H. The Trust admitted and apologised for the inaccurate information in its first response dated 20 November 2024 regarding Mr H being on the correct treatment before the test was done.
33. Mr H said the Trust caused him further distress and anxiety on top of what he was experiencing waiting for his test result. He said having to chase and not getting anywhere with his complaints was very stressful. He said he felt ignored, despite being very ill and struggling. He also said he found the inaccurate information in the Trust’s first complaint response very dismissive and made him feel like the complaint had not been carefully considered, again adding to his stress.
Resolution
34. Our service model guidance says we should consider attempting a resolution where it appears that, with minimal intervention, we could achieve a satisfactory result for the complainant. This could include asking an organisation to provide financial redress, or to consider service improvements.
35. As the Trust had already acknowledged things went wrong in Mr H’s case, we contacted the Trust to explain this impact this had on Mr H and the outcomes he was seeking.
36. The Trust agreed to provide Mr H a financial remedy of £2000 and evidence of improvements to its complaint handling and its handling of test results.
37. We told the Trust to pay the agreed financial remedy to Mr H and provide evidence of service improvements by Monday 20 April 2026.
38. We consider the financial remedy and evidence of service improvements is a suitable resolution for Mr H’s claimed impact and fits with the guidance on our severity of injustice scale. Our scale says we may recommend a level four remedy where there have been adverse impacts on quality of life lasting more than six months, or when someone had a physiological impact such as minor pain for three months to a year.
39. We should have regard to the outcome the complainant seeks in determining remedy. Mr H confirmed he is satisfied with the actions the Trust has taken, including its commitment to make improvements to its complaint handling and response times.
40. Our NHS Complaint Standards say organisations should find ‘suitable and appropriate ways to put things right for people who raise a complaint’. We consider the Trust has acted in line with this by agreeing to pay Mr H £2000 and provide evidence of the service improvements it has made. As this is the outcome Mr H is seeking, there is no need for us to take further action.
41. We were sorry to hear of Mr H’s experience and the ongoing impact this has had and thank him for bringing his concerns to our attention. We hope the explanations we have provided in our decision, and the resolution the Trust has agreed to provide, help him in finding closure on his case.