Nottingham City Care Partnership

3. Mr R complains Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and Nottingham City Care Partnership did not treat his back problem effectively while under both its care from 2018. He says specifically he continued to receive steroid injections despite having a diagnosis of stenosis and his pain was not managed correctly.

4. Mr R says he should never have been given steroid injections with a diagnosis of stenosis as these will not work. He says he has gone from having three prolapsed discs to seven and has told us this is due to the poor standard of care he has received. He also says he is in constant pain and his quality of life has deteriorated due to this. He wants an acknowledgement of failings and a financial remedy.

5. In May 2018, Mr R was given as diagnosis of stenosis by the Trust, which is a narrowing that can cause pressure on the spinal cord or the nerves that go from the spinal cord to the muscles. He was advised he would not be suitable for an operation. He received two more steroid injections at this point.

6. Mr R asked the Partnership for a surgical opinion in 2019 following and MRI scan and in March 2020 was told an operation was not necessary and further injections were requested. He had two further injections in July 2021.

7. On 14 March 2023, he had a consultation with a spinal practitioner at the Trust who went through the whole history of his back pain with him and told him the steroid injections that he had would not work due to his diagnosis of stenosis.

9. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint if there is or was a legal remedy that the aggrieved could pursue or could have pursued unless it is (or was) not reasonable for them to do so.

10. We discussed the complaint with Mr R to understand his complaint, how the Trust’s and the Partnership’s actions impacted him, and what outcomes he is hoping to achieve.

11. Mr R told us he had been receiving care and treatment for his back pain for several years and in 2018 he was given a diagnosis of stenosis. He says following this, he continued to receive steroid injections which were not effective in managing his pain, but it was not until March 2023 when he saw a new spinal practitioner that he was told the injections would not work due to his diagnosis of stenosis.

12. During our conversation on 10 May 2024 and having shared the severity of injustice scale with Mr R in an email on 15 April, he explained that he was seeking an acknowledgment of failings and a financial remedy, but he was unsure how much compensation he was seeking at that time.

13. From our conversation we can see that Mr R believes the actions of both the Trust and the Partnership have caused the issues with his back to deteriorate as he has told us he now has seven prolapsed discs and has been in considerable pain for some time. He has told us he believes this is due to the poor standard of care he received. This appears to be a claim of medical negligence that caused harm and may be better suited to the Courts process.

14. We are satisfied at this time that the courts are better placed to establish if the Trust and the Partnership was negligent and obtain compensation for the impact Mr R has told us about. This could also achieve the acknowledgement he seeks, as if the Courts find the Trust was negligent it will naturally reflect on this to learn and improve through its serious incident framework.

15. If Mr R is not able to pursue legal action, he can bring his complaint back to us and we could consider it as a new complaint. At that point, we would need to carefully consider the outcome of any legal enquiries and the outcomes he was seeking.

16. We also need to consider the time which has elapsed, as our time limits would still apply. It is therefore important that Mr R takes legal advice without any avoidable delays.

17. We understand Mr R’s experience has been difficult for his as he has been living with unmanaged pain or several years. We hope this statement clearly explains our decision not to consider his complaint further at this time.

1. We have carefully considered Mr R’s complaint about Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust (the Trust) and Nottingham City Care Partnership (the Partnership). We were sorry to hear about the experience Mr R had, and the challenges he faces regarding his back pain. We recognise that Mr R has been through a very difficult and painful time.

2. We consider Mr R may be able to take legal action on the matter he has brought to us. We have considered the circumstances of his complaint and what he has told us and decided to take no further action for this reason. We are sorry for any additional distress this may cause but we hope our reasoning below explains how we have considered this and why we think this is the best way to achieve the outcomes he wants.