Unreasonable withdrawal of treatment

What happened

For several years, Mr V had been receiving orthopaedic treatment at a number of clinics in Essex for an ongoing problem. The consultant overseeing his care was transferred to a hospital controlled by a Trust in Kent, and Mr V followed him for treatment at that hospital. Although Mr V lived in Essex, and the hospital was outside its normal catchment area, his local commissioning service in Essex, firstly a primary care trust (PCT), then a clinical commissioning Group (CCG), continued to pay for his treatment.

Mr V was happy with the treatment he received at the hospital, but at the end of 2013, after around a year, the Kent Trust told Mr V that, as his symptoms had eased for the time being, there would be a natural break in his treatment. It said that as a result of this, the CCG in Essex had withdrawn funding for his treatment and Mr V would need to get any further treatment closer to home.

Mr V thought that the decision to withdraw both his treatment and financial support was both unfair and unreasonable. He also felt it contravened the spirit of the NHS Constitution for England which says patients are able to make informed choices about their healthcare.

What we found

We upheld Mr V's complaint. Mr V's local CCG never withdrew funding, and we are unsure why the Kent Trust wanted to discharge him. Furthermore, having taken clinical advice, we were not convinced by the Trust's opinion that he had reached a natural break in his treatment. We could therefore see no viable reason why his treatment at the Trust was terminated.

Putting it right

The Kent Trust apologised to Mr V and issued an appointment for his continued treatment at its hospital.