A practice in the South Holland area

3. Mrs O complains between April and November 2024, the Practice failed to investigate the symptoms of infection she was suffering with and then delayed providing blood test results for a week.

4. Mrs O says she was diagnosed with sepsis in November 2024 and if the Practice had identified and treated the infection sooner before it came life threatening it would have saved her a lot of pain and suffering. Her treatment and recovery period has taken many months and contributed to her subsequently falling and breaking her arm.

5. As a result of bringing this complaint to us, Mrs O is seeking service improvements and level 5 financial remedy.

6. Mrs O says from April 2024 she started reporting symptoms of bruising and swelling around her knee to the Practice and she had various appointments about this between April and November 2024.

7. In November 2024 she was referred to hospital and diagnosed with sepsis. She was admitted to hospital where she was treated for 6 weeks with antibiotics. Following this she had a further 6 weeks of treatment at the hospital as an outpatient.

8. Mrs O complained to the Practice on 3 December 2024. The Practice sent its response on 17 September 2025, and she brought the complaint to us on 23 September 2025.

10. 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 have discussed this with Mrs O 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.

11. Mrs O says the Practice were negligent in her care and failed to carry out appropriate care and treatment. She says the delay in identifying her infection meant it developed into sepsis and put her life in danger. She says she experienced a lot of pain and suffering. Her treatment and recovery period has taken many months, and this contributed to her subsequently falling and breaking her arm. This means that Mrs O might be able to bring a claim of clinical negligence.

12. Mrs O is seeking service improvements and financial remedy. The amount of financial remedy Mrs O seeks is at the higher end of our severity of injustice scale at level 5.

13. This scale allows us to ensure the recommendations we make are consistent and transparent for everyone who uses our service. The figures included in the scale represent the Ombudsman’s judgement about the sort of sums that are both appropriate and proportionate for us to recommend. The scale contains six different levels of injustice that a complaint could fall into, which increase in severity. Each level is then linked to a range of financial amounts we would usually recommend in those circumstances.

14. A court would be able to carefully consider and assess an appropriate amount of compensation for the impact Mrs O says this had on her. A successful clinical negligence claim can often attach a larger financial sum than we might recommend on our scale. We would not want to disadvantage her by ‘under settling’ the complaint or proceed with an investigation, as we are unlikely to be able to achieve the level of financial remedy she is looking for.

15. Mrs O is also seeking service improvements. While legal action would focus on financial remedy, it may also include some other outcomes. Pursuing a clinical negligence claim could potentially achieve service improvements too as a byproduct of a successful claim.

16. Mrs O told us she has already previously spoken to a solicitor who says they would be willing to take on the case. Mrs O says she is getting older and now in her 80’s and worries about the stress a legal case could cause. Speaking to solicitors about a case is not different to speaking to us, and in a lot of cases, these types of complaints are settled out of court. In some ways the legal process can be easier due to the fact solicitors would be on the complainant’s side, acting on their behalf, whereas we are an independent and impartial service and do not take sides.

17. Taking all of this into account, we believe it is reasonable for Mrs O to pursue legal action. We have decided not to consider the complaint further on these grounds. The courts can independently review the complaint and decide whether there has been a clinical negligence, and, if so, decide on what amount of financial compensation would be appropriate. We hope this information helps Mrs O progress her complaint and achieve all the outcomes she is seeking.

18. If Mrs O finds she does not have a legal route for the complaint, she may come back to us and we could potentially consider her complaint. Complaints need to be brought to us within one year of the person becoming aware they have reason to complain. We can put our time limit to one side if we consider there is good reason to do so. Mrs O would need to come back to us promptly if she is unsuccessful with her attempts to pursue legal action.

19. Complaints give us a valuable insight into the organisations we investigate, and we recognise this has been a distressing process for Mrs O. We would like to thank Mrs O for sharing her experience with us.

1. We have carefully considered Mrs O’s complaint about the Practice. We were sorry to hear about the circumstances of the complaint and the impact Mrs O endured as a result of her sepsis infection.

2. We have decided not to consider Mrs O’s complaint further. This is because we have decided it is reasonable for her to pursue legal remedy by way of a clinical negligence claim.