10. Miss T complains the Trust delayed the reporting of her father, Mr N’s CT scan in March 2025 which resulted in there being a delay in his diagnosis of lung cancer. We were sorry to hear Mr N died shortly after receiving his diagnosis.
11. We have seen evidence Mr N attended for a CT scan on his chest, abdomen and pelvis in mid-March. The Trust then issued the results of this scan in early April, 17 days after the scan. Mr N received the diagnosis from his GP.
12. In its final response, the Trust confirmed Mr N was on a pathway where cancer was suspected. It goes on to say that the reports on investigations via this pathway should be completed within a two-week time frame. It has acknowledged that its reporting on Mr N’s scan fell short of this time frame by three days. The Trust’s acknowledged that this delay was because it placed Mr N’s report on a non-priority list in error. It cannot explain the reason for this although it appears to be human error.
13. As the Trust has acknowledged the failing in reporting the scan and the delay in Mr N receiving his diagnosis, we have gone on to look at the impact this had on Miss T and her father. Miss T told us the delay in receiving the results meant there was also a delay in her father receiving a cancer diagnosis and treatment and he has since sadly died. She says he was also unaware that he had three blood clots and flew abroad when waiting for the results. She is concerned as she says air travel can cause a blood clot to grow and move around the body and he was not aware of this risk at the time. She says watching her father’s quick deterioration was distressing and that unanswered questions have only added to the distress.
14. Due to the nature of the complaint, we have sought clinical advice from an experienced oncologist. Our clinical adviser has explained Mr N had a particularly aggressive form of cancer and an extensive metastatic (secondary) spread. They go on to say the three-day delay in reporting this diagnosis would not have changed this or his treatment options.
15. In relation to the Trust’s additional findings of three blood clots our clinical adviser explained blood clots are common in patients with aggressive widespread cancer and could have been there for some time. They said it is also important to note Mr N had no symptoms from the blood clots and flew on holiday without any issues.
16. Although, we have seen the delay in reporting Mr N’s CT scan resulted in a delay in him receiving his cancer diagnosis by three days, we are not able to say this impacted his treatment options.
17. It is clear from what she has told us that this was a distressing time for Miss Tand her family as her father died a month after his diagnosis. We understand that she also feels these are unanswered questions.
18. We can see the Trust apologised for the error in the reporting on Mr N’s CT scan and for the delay and distress this caused. It is also reviewing its practices in relation to how investigations are reported on and working to reduce the backlog of cases under review. It is clear from its final response that it has taken learning from Miss T’s complaint and reflected on it for future practice. We also recognise it has answered the complaint as fully as possible because it appears to have been due to human error in this specific case.
19. We are therefore satisfied that the actions of the Trust when it acknowledged and apologised for the delay in providing Mr N with the results of his CT scan and for the distress this caused, alongside the action it has taken to learn and improve, are in line with our Principles which says an organisation should learn from a complaint to improve public service.
20. Miss T also told us she wanted a financial remedy, so we have considered the impact the experience has had on her. She told us the Trust’s delays made an already distressing experience worse. We recognise she is also seeking further answers, which we are sorry we have been unable to provide any further detail on, as we cannot add anything further than what the Trust has already advised as to why the three-day delay happened.
21. We have considered our Severity of Injustice scale and feel that the level of added distress Miss T experienced at what was already a difficult and upsetting time, should be the Trust has addressed by acknowledging the error, apologising and taking action to learn and improve. We would not recommend a financial remedy for this level of distress.
22. We do appreciate if the Trust had actioned the report within its timescale, it would have eased her overall distress and upset. We do not consider our findings led to the significant impact she has told us about regarding her father’s treatment options. We hope she will be reassured by this.
23. Based on this we are satisfied an acknowledgement, apology and service improvements are enough to address the impact caused by the three-day delay in reporting her father’s CT scan. We will therefore take no further action on the complaint.