Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

3. Mr H complains Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) should have operated on him following an accident in October 2014, much sooner than it did. Mr H also complains the two operations it carried out on 5 and 12 April 2016 were done without the benefit of an up-to-date scan and they went wrong.

4. He says the Trust's failings in his care have left him permanently disabled, in pain and unable to work again.

5. He wants an apology from the Trust and financial compensation.

6. In October 2014 Mr H suffered an accident at work in which he sustained a compressed vertebrae, damaging the bones and nerves in his spine.

7. He went to A&E the next day.

8. In February 2015 he was referred to the Trust’s neurology clinic.

9. On 29 May 2015, the Trust did a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, a form of X-ray examination, of his spine.

10. In June 2015, the neurologist referred Mr H to neurosurgery. He was seen in the neurosurgery clinic in July 2015 when the option of surgery was discussed.

11. Mr H was added to the waiting list for neurosurgery on 20 October 2015.

12. The Trust operated on Mr H twice, on 5 April and 12 April 2016.

13. Mr H remained in pain after his surgery. Several months later he was given a nerve root injection to see if further surgery would help, but he was not offered this.

14. In October 2017 Mr H complained to the Trust about his care. In the same year he brought a legal claim against his employer for the accident.

16. The law says a person needs to make their complaint to us within a year of becoming aware of the problem. We cannot investigate complaints brought to us after a year, unless we consider there is a good reason to do so. We have discussed this with Mr H to understand why he did not make his complaint to us earlier. We have also considered the time the Trust took to respond to Mr H.

17. Mr H said the Trust operated on him on 5 April 2016. He was told he would be in hospital for a day or so. After the operation he was in so much pain the Trust carried out a second operation on 12 April 2016. He was in hospital for almost three weeks.

18. He told us after the two surgeries in April 2016, the surgeon apologised to him and his wife, saying they could either make one or two claims against the Trust for what had happened. Mr H says he was not given a clear explanation of what went wrong but knew he was still in pain.

19. Although it appears the two surgeries in April 2016 had not been straightforward, Mr H could not be expected to know how his recovery would progress at this time.

20. He says it was in 2017, when he was still in pain and the clinical team had ruled out any further surgery to help him, he realised he had a reason to complain. He complained to the Trust on 19 October 2017. We consider this to be the date of knowledge he had reason to complain.

21. Mr H was aware by October 2017 there were issues following his operation in April 2016. This means he had to raise his concerns to us by October 2018. We received his completed complaint form on 23 June 2022. So the complaint is three years and eight months outside our time limit and we must consider the reasons for the delay in it being brought to us.

22. It took 11 months until the Trust’s complaint handling was complete, from when Mr H complained in October 2017 to 3 September 2018, the date of the Trust’s written response. The Trust apologised for how long the process took and there is no sign Mr H contributed to this delay.

23. Mr H told us he did not agree with the Trust’s response or the timeline it set out. We normally expect complainants to submit their complaint quickly. Had Mr H complained to us shortly after receiving this response, his complaint would have been in time.

24. Mr H said one reason he did not bring his complaint sooner was because the Trust did not tell him he could come to us, so he thought the process was at an end. While we acknowledge the Trust did not refer Mr H to us, as it should have done, he did make his own enquiries to eventually find us in 2022. We consider he could have done this much sooner than he did.

25. Mr H also told us he did not come to us sooner because his mental health was not good. The accident meant he could not work again and he was in constant pain. This left him very depressed and suicidal at times. We do not doubt Mr H struggled with his mental health during this period, and we know he still receives support and treatment for this.

26. We understand the impact of his mental health on his ability to function and do not underestimate how difficult this period was. But we note Mr H was able to pursue the separate legal claim he brought against his employer for the accident from 2017 until it was settled in 2021. We do not consider his mental health would have consistently prevented him from approaching us before June 2022.

27. We understand how distressing events have been for Mr H since the accident and since it became clear there is no surgical option to stop his pain. Unfortunately, having completed the Trust’s complaint process, Mr H could have brought his complaint to us more quickly. The reasons for the delay are not enough for us to set aside our time limit when this has been exceeded by three years and eight months. We will not be taking any further action on the complaint.

1. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has carefully considered Mr H’s complaint about Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). We have decided the complaint falls outside our time limit.

2. We consider Mr H could have pursued his complaint more quickly than he did, and so we have decided not to put our time limit to one side. We understand how very difficult and distressing the events have been for Mr H. We recognise how challenging it is to continue to experience high levels of pain. We know how disappointing this decision will be for him.