3. Mrs T complains about the service she received from the Trust in January 2025.
4. Specifically, Mrs T said the Trust did not follow correct procedures when recording and handling patient property.
5. Mrs T said as a result of the claimed failings the Trust lost two of her gold rings, which have sentimental value. She said losing her rings has added to her stress at an already stressful time.
6. Mrs T is looking for financial remedy to correctly reflect the value of the rings.
7. In January 2025, Mrs T attended the Trust for a pre-planned surgery. The Trust told Mrs T to place her property into the sealable bag it provided.
8. The day after her pre-planned surgery Mrs T’s daughter visited her mother in hospital. She noticed her mother’s rings were missing. Mrs T’s daughter told the Trust. It said her it would search the ward for the missing rings.
9. The Trust said it could not find Mrs T’s rings. It said it was likely the bag containing the rings had been thrown away by mistake.
10. Around a week later, the Trust discharged Mrs T.
11. Mrs T’s daughter telephoned the Trust for an update. The Trust said it could have taped Mrs T’s rings to her finger so she would not have had to take them off. The Trust said to raise a complaint.
The Trust not following correct procedures when recording and handling patient property.
14. 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 cannot link the events complained about with the negative impact Mrs T has claimed.
15. Mrs T attended the Trust for pre-planned surgery in January 2025. The Trust provided Mrs T with a property bag. She placed her medication, mobile phone and two gold rings into the bag. She described the rings as an 18-carat gold half eternity ring and a nine-carat gold ring, with a blue sapphire stone and diamonds on each side.
16. Mrs T’s daughter visited her at the Trust. Mrs T only had her mobile phone. Her daughter reported the rings as missing, to the Trust. It said it would search for the rings on the ward.
17. The Trust could not find the rings. It said it may have discarded the bag containing the rings by mistake.
18. Around a week later, the Trust discharged Mrs T.
19. Mrs T said she was concerned the Trust was unable to provide a clear chain of custody for her property, which meant her property went missing.
20. The Trust said when Mrs T went into surgery, it removed her medication from the property bag and placed it in the medication locker. The Trust said it placed the remaining property in the ward safe.
21. The Trust said it handed Mrs T all her property, when she came back from recovery in the early hours of the morning.
22. The Trust said when Mrs T’s daughter reported the missing rings, it escalated the incident to the nurse in charge. It also reported the missing rings to the security team. The Trust said it did a thorough search of the ward but was unable to find the rings.
23. Additionally, it said they only tape jewellery in place, if the patient is unable to remove it. The Trust told Mrs T best practice is always to remove jewellery where possible.
24. The Trust’s complaint response says before Mrs T’s surgery it provided her with a disclosure letter. The disclosure letter is what the Trust sends to all patients which tells the patients how to prepare for surgery. The disclosure letter says to remove all jewellery and not to bring valuables into the Trust. Mrs T confirmed that she received this before her surgery.
25. The letter says patients should remove all jewellery and leave any valuables at home. It explains if individuals take valuables into the Trust, then then this it at their own risk.
26. The Trust has apologised to Mrs T. It has explained it did not follow standard procedure during Mrs T’s admission. The Trust said it normally has two members of staff present in the recording and handling of property. This is to make sure accurate recording of the property and so it maintains the safety of property at all times.
27. The Trust also said Trust staff recall seeing only one ring.
28. The Trust said it discussed Mrs T’s complaint in the governance meeting for reflection and improvement. Consequently, it offered Mrs T £300 as a gesture of goodwill.
29. KCH safe management of patient property policy explains the expectations of how patients’ property should be stored, handled and recorded.
30. The policy says the property should be placed into a sealable bag and stored in the ward safe. The property should be handled with care and regard and be accurately recorded. The patient must also sign the disclosure letter. This is the document which Mrs T received before her surgery where it says not to bring valuables unless at their own risk.
31. There is no reference in the KCH safe management of patient property policy about two members of staff being present when handling and recording property. The Trust’s response said this is what normally happens, and it did not act how it normally would. We consider this a shortcoming, rather than a failing. A shortcoming is when the Trust has made a mistake but does not fall so far below the standard for it to be a failing.
32. Mrs T did not sign the disclosure letter on admission. The signed disclosure letter is not documented in her medical records. During the initial call with us, Mrs T’s daughter confirmed they received the disclosure letter. We recognise the Trust did provide the letter to Mrs T. As the Trust did not obtain a signature for the disclosure letter, it has not acted in line with guidance and there is an indication of a failing.
33. Although Mrs T did not sign the disclosure letter on the day of admission, she did receive the letter. It is our view that she was aware of the risks of taking valuables to the Trust. We understand when you take property into the Trust, you do not expect it to go missing. We understand the distress Mrs T may have experienced when she realised her rings had gone missing.
34. We have also thought about PHSO’s principles for remedy. They direct us to consider if it is possible the complainant may have contributed to their own injustice or hardship. In this case Mrs T took the rings into the Trust against advice. For this reason, we consider she contributed to the injustice of the rings going missing.
35. We cannot see there is a linked injustice. Although Mrs T did not sign the policy, she was aware of its contents and advice to leave valuables at home. She chose to take her rings into the hospital. This means we cannot hold the Trust entirely responsible for the loss.
36. In the Trust’s complaint response, the Trust recognised it did not obtain Mrs T’s signature on the disclosure when it should have. Nor did it handle her property in line with usual practice.
37. It has apologised and offered her £300 as a gesture of goodwill. While we understand this may not reflect the value or sentimental value of Mrs T’s rings, we have seen no justification for us to consider this further.
38. We recognise how difficult it can be to make a complaint. we would like to thank Mrs T for bringing her concerns to us.
1. We have carefully considered Mrs T’s complaint about King College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). We were very sorry to hear about what happened to Mrs T and the distress it caused her.
2. We have decided we cannot link the events to the loss of Mrs T’s gold rings which had sentimental value and the stress the loss of the rings caused at an already stressful time.