Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

6. Mrs B complains that staff at the Trust failed to arrange a follow-up appointment after her hysterectomy in July 2024. She says this left her feeling unclear about the details of her surgery.

7. Mrs B complains that a swab taken on 25 November 2024 showed the presence of infection, but staff did not tell her or treat it. She says some months later she had to seek treatment from her GP for the same infection.

8. Finally, she complains that staff were dismissive and uncaring regarding her pain when she attended hospital in November 2024.

9. Mrs B states that not having any follow up appointments has caused her stress and worry. She states because of the staff’s attitude to her pain; she is now reluctant to seek medical treatment and is still in pain which has a severe impact on her personal life.

10. Mrs B seeks an acknowledgement that things went wrong, an apology and service improvements.

11. Mrs B underwent a total hysterectomy in July 2024, with both ovaries being removed. This was to treat her endometriosis which had potentially spread to her bowels.

12. Following this surgery Mrs B continued to have ongoing pain and complications. Mrs B communicated these symptoms with a gynaecology nurse at the Trust.

13. She attended hospital in November 2024 regarding concerns about faeces leaking from her vagina and her ongoing pain.

Follow up appointment

17. Before we decide if we should investigate a complaint in more detail, we look at a few different factors. We look at whether what happened had a negative impact on the person in question. If we think it did, we will go on to consider what, if anything, the organisation has done to try to put things right. Having done this, we consider there were delays by the Trust arranging some of Mrs B’s appointments. We are satisfied that the Trust has acknowledged these delays, apologised, has taken steps to remedy and learn from them. We have therefore decided not to take further action.

18. Mrs B explains that after her hysterectomy, the Trust told her she would have a follow up appointment in three months, and she was given the gynaecology unit’s contact details in case of complications. She says the Trust did not arrange the follow up appointment. Mrs B said she did contact the gynaecology unit for help, but she did not feel this replaced seeing a surgeon in person to discuss her surgery and seek reassurance.

19. The Trust explained that it booked Mrs B for a follow up appointment in October 2024. However, it cancelled this after Mrs B spoke with a nurse in August about ongoing pain, so it could refer her to a consultant colorectal surgeon. The Trust said it delayed sending this referral and apologised, explaining how the error occurred and outlined planned service improvements through a new electronic patient record system and dictation platform.

20. The Trust said once it sent the referral, it placed Mrs B on a routine outpatient waiting list. It apologised for further delays when the Consultant was off sick. The Trust confirmed Mrs B has now been seen by the consultant colorectal surgeon and received a follow up gynaecology appointment.

21. Our NHS Complaint Standards say that providing fair and proportionate remedies is an integral part of good complaint handling. They go on to say that in many cases a prompt explanation and an apology will be a sufficient and appropriate response.

22. We acknowledge that Mrs B felt let down about the follow up appointment being delayed. It is unclear whether the Trust adequately explained the reason the appointment was delayed to Mrs B, prior to her complaining about it. We recognise, that the delay to arrange the appointment to see the consultant colorectal surgeon by the Trust, has subsequently delayed Mrs B’s gynaecology appointment and left her with a longer wait than expected. We understand this has caused Mrs B distress and left her with a period of uncertainty around her surgery.

23. We must also consider what the Trust has done to listen to Mrs B’s concerns and put right its mistakes. The Trust acknowledged when and how the delays have occurred, apologised for this and took action to improve the service in the future. These are in line with the outcomes sought by Mrs B and our Complaint Standards.

24. We do not think there is anything more for us to meaningfully ask the Trust to achieve in respect of this complaint. This is not to say we do not acknowledge that there were some unnecessary delays, which did cause Mrs B distress. We just consider the Trust has adequately addressed and dealt with the matter.

25. We hope the decision gives Mrs B some reassurance that the Trust has listened to her concerns and acted on her complaint. We recognise it must have been a frustrating and distressing time for Mrs B whilst she waited for her follow up appointments. We are sorry to hear the upset she has been caused following her surgery.

Infection in November 2024

26. Another thing we look at before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint is whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. Having done this, we did not see any indications doctors did anything wrong when they did not treat Mrs B for an infection following her swabs in November 2024.

27. Mrs B complains that a swab taken in November 2024 showed the presence of infection, but staff did not tell her or treat it. Mrs B states in February or March 2025 she attended her GP practice and was treated for an infection with antibiotics. Mrs B believes this is the same infection that she thinks she had whilst in hospital.

28. The Trust said a swab was taken in November 2024 which showed a growth of group G streptococcus but no signs of vulvovaginitis (inflammation of the vagina and vulva). It explained that as Mrs B’s bloods were normal there was no need to treat the presence of group G Streptococcus unless she was pregnant.

29. GMC Good medical Practice 2024 sets professional standards for doctors. It states that in providing clinical care a doctor must adequately assess a patient’s condition, taking account of their history, including symptoms, carry out a physical examination where necessary and provide prompt treatment where needed.

30. Our adviser explained that there are no official guidelines in treating group G streptococcus in non-pregnant women and a clinician will rely on clinical correction. This is the process of connecting a patient’s symptoms, medical history, physical exam, test results to reach an accurate diagnosis.

31. They went on to explain that detection of group G streptococcus on a vaginal swab alone, as was the case with Mrs B, does not prove an infection and may simply show the presence of the bacteria without symptoms. They explained that group G streptococcus is a common bacterium and forms part of normal vaginal flora (healthy bacteria that lives inside the vagina). They also said that treatment would only be recommended if the group G streptococcus is associated with evidence of vulvovaginitis, which the medical records show Mrs B did not have.

32. Mrs B was examined in hospital by a doctor. The examination findings are documented in the medical records as normal with no evidence of vulvovaginitis. We recognise that Mrs B later developed an infection which required treatment by her GP, and this was of course unfortunate. However, at the time of her examination, there were no issues with the presence of bacteria, which is likely why she was not told about it: it was inconsequential and so there was no need to know.

33. Our decision must focus on Mrs B’s clinical presentation at the time the swab was taken and whether treatment was indicated based on the examination and the results of the swab. We are satisfied that treatment was not required at this time as the presence of the bacterium was normal and not causing any problems. We have, therefore, decided not to consider this complaint further.

34. We are sorry to hear about the upset Mrs B felt when finding out the results of the swabs and, we understand this must have been distressing for her. We hope our explanation offers her some reassurance that the Trust’s treatment was correct following the results of her swab.

Attitude to pain

35. Mrs B claims that staff were dismissive regarding her pain in November 2024 and did not take her pain seriously. She stated a doctor told her she had a low pain threshold. She said the dismissive attitude of the doctor has made her reluctant to seek medical treatment to effectively manage her pain.

36. The Trust agreed that the treatment described by Mrs B is not in line with its values. It apologised for the dismissive attitude of the doctor and said that all staff have been reminded of its ‘patient first’ approach. The Trust said because of Mrs B’s visit in November a referral was made to the chronic pain clinic. The Trust said this referral was incorrectly sent. It apologised for this error and once identified, ensured Mrs B was seen at the earliest opportunity.

37. We acknowledge the comment about Mrs B having a low pain threshold would have been distressing for her, particularly at an already difficult time. We also recognise that the delay in her pain referral, likely caused upset and may well have given the impression that her pain was not being taken seriously.

38. We looked at the steps the Trust took to address what went wrong. In this case, once the issues were identified, the Trust apologised, addressed the complaint with the staff member, and ensured Mrs B was seen at the earliest opportunity for her chronic pain clinic appointment. We think these were appropriate steps for the Trust to take to put matters right, and they were in line with our Complaint Standards, as previously referenced. We, therefore, do not consider that there is anything more the Trust needs to do.

39. We recognise that these actions cannot change the impact this experience had on Mrs B and we absolutely acknowledge that she was subject to some delays that must have been really stressful for her. We hope our explanation provides her with some reassurance that the Trust has taken her complaint seriously and learnt from what she has told it.

1. We have carefully considered Mrs B’s complaint about Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust).

2. We appreciate that the decision to undergo the operation was not one Mrs B took lightly, and we recognise that the period following the procedure has been a particularly difficult time for her.

3. We consider the Trust has already appropriately acknowledged the impact of the delay in Mrs B’s appointments and the doctor’s dismissive comments about her pain.

4. We also think the doctor made the right decision not to treat Mrs B for an infection, at the time her swab was taken, as she was not showing symptoms that would indicate treatment was needed.

5. We have therefore decided not to consider Mrs B’s complaint further. We have explained our decision in detail below.