Woman distressed by Trust's poor complaint handling

What happened

Ms D had surgery to remove fibroids. However, because of heavy bleeding after the operation, she was taken back to theatre and doctors removed her womb. During surgery she also suffered an injury to her arm when fluid going into a vein in her arm accidentally went into the soft tissues around the vein.

Ms D first complained to the Trust in winter 2010, and it responded in spring 2011. Ms D told the Trust that she was dissatisfied but it closed the case.

In the following months there were attempts to set up a meeting. Ms D wanted a written response to her concerns before a meeting. The Trust provided a response in autumn 2012, and there was a meeting in spring 2013. The surgeon and the ward sister that Ms D had complained about did not attend the meeting, but it was agreed that they would both apologise to Ms D. The Trust sent its final response to Ms D in summer 2013, acknowledging that the complaint had not been handled well. It enclosed an apology from the ward sister only.

What we found

The Trust was unable to find Ms D's medical file. It could only provide some electronic records and a statement from the surgeon. Because of this, we could not confirm what staff had told Ms D before and after surgery. However, the Trust had not given her an appropriate explanation of what happened. Because the records were missing, the issue was still unresolved, which was an ongoing injustice to Ms D.

The Trust told Ms D about the injury to her arm, and she had an appropriate apology from the ward sister. The complaint process was overlong, however, and the Trust should have tried to arrange a meeting with Ms D very much earlier, rather than closing the complaint in spring 2011.

The Trust had never told Ms D why doctors needed to remove her womb, although she had specifically asked for an explanation. We considered it was very unfortunate that neither the surgeon nor the ward sister attended the meeting, and that it was wrong to offer an apology from the surgeon when he was not there. The Trust did not tell Ms D why there was no apology from the surgeon.

The Trust was wrong to say it could not offer financial compensation for the poor complaint handling that it had already acknowledged.

Putting it right

Following our investigation, the Trust explained to Ms D why doctors had needed to remove her womb.

It apologised for the failings, including the loss of her records, and paid her £750 as compensation for her distress.

The Trust also agreed to put together an action plan to show how it had learnt from its mistakes so that they will not happen again.