Treatment delay, serious inconvenience, and frustration for patient

What happened

Miss N needed an elbow replacement, which was to be done as two separate operations. The first–stage operation was cancelled and rescheduled twice because there was no bed available for her. Before the second operation, she went to several clinic appointments, waiting at least three hours to be seen at each one. Once Miss N was medically fit to have the second operation, after several months, the operation was cancelled because the operating theatre had not been deep cleaned, so there was an unacceptable risk of infection. A month after that, the operation finally went ahead.

During that month Miss N went to a clinic appointment and waited an hour and a half to be seen.

Miss N complained to the Trust about the repeated cancellation of her operations for administrative reasons, and about the length of time she waited in clinics. She asked for financial compensation. After correspondence between them, Miss N remained unhappy with the way the Trust had handled her complaint. She complained to us about her experience at the hospital, and that the Trust's investigation of her complaint was not thorough or independent.

What we found

The Trust inaccurately recorded the first two cancellations, which meant that it could not prioritise Miss N properly when deciding whose operation to cancel. We could not say that her operations definitely would have happened, but there was a missed opportunity for them to have gone ahead as scheduled. The wait for the deep clean meant that Miss N's treatment was delayed by a month, so she had to wear a cast on her elbow for one month longer than necessary. The length of time she waited to be seen in clinics was unreasonable. This all caused serious inconvenience to Miss N.

The Trust did not fully and openly explain to Miss N what had gone wrong. Trust staff knew about the inaccurate reporting and that there were significant delays in clinics but did not explain this. The complaint investigation was not thorough because relevant electronic data about how long Miss N waited was not considered. Miss N was not told that the Trust had (internally) upheld her complaint. Her request for financial remedy was not properly considered. The investigation into part of her complaint was not independent because the investigating members of staff worked in the department responsible for managing cancelled operations and also fracture clinics.

Putting it right

The Trust apologised to Miss N for its failings and paid her £750. It is preparing plans to stop the same thing happening again.