Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

3. Mr E complains the Trust failed to provide treatment for sarcopenia (loss of muscle mass linked with aging) for his wife between 30 April and 12 May 2022. He also complains: • there was a lack of a care plan • no scans were taken after a fall • no referrals were made to a neurologist • there was no offer of physio or occupational health.

4. Mr E believes the way the Trust handled Mrs E’s condition has negatively affected her health.

5. Mr E wants the Trust to accept the failings and apologise. He also wants a financial payment so he can pay for rehabilitation for his wife.

6. Mrs E was in her late seventies and was admitted to hospital on 30 April 2022. She had been diagnosed with sarcopenia and needed full time care. Mr E complained to the Trust because he felt it did not follow the correct processes and policies and that the care and treatment was not good enough.

9. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has or had the option to take legal action, unless we consider this is, or was unreasonable in the circumstances. We discussed this with Mr E to understand his circumstances and the outcomes he wants. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed but whether it would be a reasonable option to look into.

10. In general terms, clinical negligence takes place when a patient who had treatment becomes injured as a result of that treatment. Failure to give appropriate treatment could also amount to the negligence.

11. Mr E made it clear to us that he feels a failing in the Trust’s duty of care led to a decline in Mrs E’s health and mobility. Mr E says she is unable to move her legs because her muscles have been affected by sitting and lying down in hospital. As well as an apology, he wants a large financial payment. So it seems he could make a clinical negligence claim.

12. In deciding whether it is reasonable for a person to take legal action, we consider how difficult this would be and if there are any barriers to a person taking this route.

13. Mr E confirmed he intends to take legal action if necessary. But he wanted guidance from us first. We do not think there are any barriers to him getting legal advice. We are also very conscious that the time limit for taking legal action is strict and we do not want him to miss the opportunity.

14. Mr E told us he wants about £3,000-£9,500 minimum. In line with our guidance on financial payments, we would only recommend the higher amount if we were to see evidence of a reduction in life expectancy or permanent loss of mobility or independence. It is more likely that we would recommend £1,000-£2,950.

15. A court can independently review Mr E’s concerns and decide whether there was any negligence and award compensation if appropriate. Courts cannot directly order organisations to accept failings or apologise, but these things can often happen as an indirect result of the legal process. It is possible legal action could resolve, or at least partly resolve, Mr E’s concerns.

16. In summary, we have decided it is reasonable for Mr E to explore the possibility of taking legal action so we cannot consider Mr E’s complaint further at this time.

17. If Mr E is unable to take legal action, or it does not achieve everything he wants, he can come back to us. At that point, we would need to carefully consider the outcome of any legal action, whether we can achieve the outcome(s) he wants and what had happened between now and coming back to us.

18. The time limit set by law would still apply. We could only set this aside if there is good reason to. We would need to see that Mr E has actively pursued the complaint and there are no delays that cannot be explained.

1. We have carefully considered Mr E’s complaint about Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). We are sorry to hear about the experience he and his wife, Mrs E, had and we recognise they have been through a difficult time.

2. We think Mr E could take legal action on the matter he has brought to us. We are sorry for any added distress this decision may cause and hope our explanation below is clear.