London Ambulance Service NHS Trust

4. Mr L complains about the Trust and an NHS 111 call handler when he and his wife called to discuss a rash on their son.

5. Mr L complains that:

• the 111 call handler made a safeguarding referral because of concerns over neglect of their son, leading to he and his wife being referred to the council for a social service assessment • he and his wife were harassed by many calls from 111 • 111 wrongly accused them of not attending A&E with their son • 111 made ‘impulsive’ comments during phone calls to them • paramedics made a ‘random’ home visit that they did not ask for.

6. Mr L describes the impact to him and his wife as prolonged grief and stress and has lowered their self-esteem and confidence as parents.

7. Mr L wants:

• an apology for him and his wife being wrongly labelled as parents who are neglecting their child • a financial payment.

8. On 15 June 2023 Mr L and his wife rang 111 to discuss a rash that had appeared on their son’s body.

9. After this call, the 111 call handler made a safeguarding referral because they thought Mr L and his wife may be neglecting their son.

10. Throughout the day 111 made many calls to Mr L and his wife to advise them to go to A&E, to check if they had gone and to arrange a video consultation appointment with their son.

11. On the same day 111 arranged for them to have an unexpected home visit from paramedics.

12. The Trust admitted in its complaint response that on reviewing the evidence, a safeguarding referral should not have been made.

14. To decide if we should do a detailed investigation into a complaint, we consider whether there are any signs that something went wrong that the organisation has not put right. If so, we try to resolve the complaint quickly by achieving the outcomes wanted at an earlier stage in our case handling process.

15. We will consider each of the concerns and what else, if anything, needs to be done to put right something that has gone wrong.

The safeguarding referral and social service assessment

16. Mr L described that this distressed both him and his wife and made them worry they were not giving their son the right care.

17. The Trust admitted in its complaint response that on reviewing the evidence, the safeguarding referral should not have been made. It said there should not have been a referral for a social service assessment. It apologised and explained it has given feedback to the 111 call handling team about this.

Harassed by many calls from 111

18. Mr L explains he found the repeated calls from 111‘harassing’ and added to the anxiety and distress caused by the situation.

19. The Trust’s complaint response does not mention the phone calls. But, we can conclude that these would not have happened if the safeguarding referral had not been made, so they were inappropriate.

111 wrongly accused Mr L and his wife of not going to A&E with their son

20. The 111 call handler advised Mr L and his wife to take their son to A&E so his rash could be examined. They took him to A&E and later the 111 call handler called A&E to check. A&E said there was no record of their attendance.

21. Mr L repeated that they had been to A&E and gave the name of the consultant who saw their son. The 111 call handler decided that they had not been and this led to the safeguarding referral being made.

22. Mr L describes how they were stressed, not trusted by the call handlers and were being made out to be ‘liars’.

23. Although the Trust’s complaint response does not specifically mention the fact it did not believe Mr L took his son to A&E, we can conclude that this led to its decision to make the safeguarding referral.

111 made ‘impulsive’ comments during phone calls to Mr L and his wife

24. This is not mentioned in the Trust’s complaint response.

Paramedics made a ‘random’ home visit

25. The home visit was a result of the safeguarding referral that was made by the 111 call handler earlier in the day.

Has the Trust done enough?

26. Mr L explained he was looking for a more detailed and personal apology from the Trust and a financial payment to cover the stress and anxiety they experienced. We spoke to the Trust about this.

27. The Trust explained it would be willing to pay £150 and provide a more detailed and personal written apology.

28. Our Principles say, ‘Where maladministration [fault] or poor service has led to injustice or hardship, public bodies should try to offer a remedy that returns the complainant to the position they would have been in otherwise. If that is not possible, the remedy should compensate them appropriately.’

29. We reviewed our severity of injustice scale (guidance we use to decide how much someone has been affected by what happened and what level of financial payment would be appropriate) and put Mr L at a level two. This relates to emotional impact like distress, worry and annoyance that do not impact on the affected person’s day to day functioning, or their ability to live a normal life. Level two impact usually lasts for up to around six months and we expect the impact to reduce completely in time. For this level we can recommend financial payments of £100 to £450.

30. Based on this we are satisfied the Trust has taken fair steps in line with our Principles and severity of injustice scale.

31. We told Mr L what the Trust has agreed to provide. We are closing this case as we have achieved the outcomes Mr L was looking for.

32. We thank Mr L for bringing his complaint to us and appreciate the difficult circumstances he experienced. We hope he is happy with the outcome of his complaint.

1. We have carefully considered Mr L’s complaint about London Ambulance Service NHS Trust (the Trust).

2. We are sorry to hear about Mr L’s experiences. We recognise the stressful impact that it had on Mr L and his wife.

3. We have considered the evidence and the Trust has agreed to take steps to put things right. This resolves the complaint.