Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

3. Mrs G is unhappy that there was a nine-month delay in her and her husband being informed about a BRAF mutation in Mr G’s cancer diagnosis. Mr G sadly died in September 2024, and Mrs G believes the actions of the two organisations took away the opportunity to investigate all treatment options and the surveillance of his condition did not suitably take into account the BRAF mutation. Mrs G believes the actions of the two organisations led to Mr G’s death.

6. The Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has (or had) the option to get an answer to their concerns by taking legal action, unless we consider this is unreasonable in the circumstances.

7. We have discussed this with Mrs G to understand her circumstances and the outcomes she wants. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed but whether it would be a reasonable option to look in to. We look at whether there are legal options available and whether it would be reasonable for the person to explore them. Mrs G has told us that she has already approached a solicitor and is in the process of pursuing a clinical negligence claim, which has not yet concluded.

8. Mrs G has also explained that the issues she wishes us to consider, relate to maladministration in the organisation’s processes and that as a result of her complaint she wants to see improvements in the organisation’s processes, and acknowledgements about the impact these issues had.

9. Mrs G’s clinical negligence claim has the potential to achieve the financial redress that she is seeking. She cannot make a legal claim for improvements and acknowledgements, but these outcomes can result as a by product of the legal process.

10. Until the clinical negligence claim is complete, we cannot tell what outcomes might be achieved and whether the issues Mrs G says she specifically wants PHSO to consider, were or were not considered by the courts as part of its process.

11. If someone has already resorted to legal action but not all the outcomes sought could have been provided by a court or tribunal, we could still consider the complaint, but the outcomes we could achieve would be limited to those not available through legal action. For us to be able to decide if there are any issues for us to consider, we would need to see the judgement itself before we took further action to ensure we did not stray into areas considered by the court.

12. At this point in time, we are satisfied there are potential legal routes available for Mrs G to pursue her concerns, which may provide the outcomes she seeks. As there are time limits for making a legal claim, we do not want to remove this as an option when it could potentially offer what Mrs G is looking for.

13. If Mrs G explores legal action and still has unresolved issues or outcomes that are not considered or remedied by the courts, she can ask us to consider her complaint again. If she does decide to return to us, she should bring her complaint back to us promptly. This is because we would need to consider our own time limits for a person to complain to us, in line with the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993.

14. We are very sorry to hear about what happened to Mr G and how this has affected, and continues to affect, Mrs G. We hope this statement clearly explains why we will not be considering her concerns further at this time.

1. We have carefully considered Mrs G’s complaint about the Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and The Clatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust. Mrs G complains about the care her husband, Mr G, received for cancer and Mrs G believes the actions of the two organisations led to Mr G’s death. We are deeply sorry to hear about the circumstances of Mrs G’ complaint and the sad death of her husband.

2. We have decided not to take further action at this time because we consider Mrs G has an alternative legal remedy to her complaint, which she is currently pursuing.