Home > Publications > Selected Cases - Health >
Selected Investigations Completed April - September 1998 > Part I, Case no. E.1733/97-98
Matters considered: Handling of complaint and request for independent review (IR) dilatory and inadequate
Complaint against: Guy's & St Thomas' Hospital NHS Trust, London
Summary of case
Ms X suffered gynaecological problems after the delivery of her baby in January 1996, and attended a consultation with a consultant gynaecologist at the Trust in April. She first complained, through the Community Health Council (CHC), in June about arrangements for the delivery of her baby and the meeting with the consultant. The Trust replied in August but Ms X remained dissatisfied. She wrote again and received a further reply in October. In November 1996 she requested an IR of the complaint but the convener did not give a decision on whether to hold an IR until February 1998, after the Ombudsman's investigation had begun.
Findings
The Ombudsman upheld the complaint. There was unacceptable confusion about sending the reply to the first letter—the response eventually received by the CHC was a faxed copy of a draft of 2 July 1996. A final reply was not signed until 26 July 1996 but the CHC did not receive it. It was only when they contacted the Trust again that any reply was received. The arrangements for sending the reply and recording its dispatch were maladministrative. It would have been better if the CHC had been informed of the reasons for delay in reply to the August letter. The fact that the consultant concerned had left the Trust did not justify failing to respond to the specific points raised. The delay of 15 months before the convener made a decision about the IR was completely unacceptable. Most of the responsibility for that delay rested with the Trust. Incorrect information given by the CHC made some initial clarification necessary. However by 25 March 1997 the convener should have been able to proceed, and to have made a decision within a further month. Instead he insisted on having further information from Ms X's GP. That caused a delay. There was also a delay in obtaining clinical advice. The convener thought the CHC were obstructive: the Ombudsman said he would have understood if the CHC thought the convener had been.
Remedy
The Trust apologised and agreed to monitor the response times of their conveners, and consider what action could be taken to prevent delays.
Previous < Contents > Next
Full text of this investigation
Back to top
|
