North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust

4. Mr H complains about the care and treatment provided to his wife, Mrs H, by the Trust. He specifically complains the Trust delayed in carrying out relevant investigations/tests to confirm whether his wife had primary or secondary Raynaud’s following her GP referral to the Trust in 2019 until her admission in April 2021.

5. Mr H says that if the Trust diagnosed his wife with secondary Raynaud’s earlier and treated her, he does not believe she would have developed Scleroderma and sadly died. He considers that she could have gone onto a treatment plan and her life would have been extended.

6. Mr H would like an acknowledgement of what went wrong.

8. The HSC Act 1993 (Section 9(4)), says we cannot accept a complaint if it is made more than a year after the day on which the person aggrieved first had notice of the matters in the complaint, unless we consider it reasonable to do so.

9. We asked Mr H when he became aware the Trust had not carried out relevant tests/investigations to establish whether his wife had primary or secondary Raynaud’s.

10. Mr H explained his wife attended her GP in 2019 with Raynaud’s symptoms (where blood stops flowing properly to fingers and toes). The GP referred her to the Trust’s Rheumatology Department.

11. Mr H said his wife already knew she had Raynaud’s because her father and brother had it. He said he and his wife did not know though if it was primary or secondary Raynaud’s at this stage.

12. He explained that when his wife attended the Trust in 2020 following the GP referral, the Trust did not do the relevant tests, for example Antinuclear Antibody (ANA) test (helps with the diagnoses of primary or secondary Raynaud’s) until she was admitted in late April 2021. He said following his own research he discovered the Trust could have done an ANA test sooner, also a nailfold capillaroscopy (tests to evaluate the microvascular structure of nailfold capillaries).

13. Mr H says if the Trust had carried out an ANA test following the referral from the GP in 2019, then he believes it would have been positive, and the Trust would have carried out further tests.

14. Mr H said his wife was admitted to hospital in April 2021 and was in hospital for 14 months. He said the Trust carried out an ANA test within days of her admittance in 2021, which showed that she had secondary Raynaud’s and had developed Scleroderma (range of conditions which effects the immune system and can cause problems with muscles, bones, internal organs and blood vessels). He said the Trust did all the relevant tests and treatment. He said by this time it was too late.

15. Mr H said he then did lots of research of the condition and what tests should be done. However, he says he did not know that it did not do the ANA tests and other tests prior to her admission in 2021.

16. Mr H said he asked for his wife’s medical records in 2022 covering the period between 2018 and 2022. He said it took seven to eight months to receive them and took them some time to go through them. Once he did, he and his wife noticed the Trust had not done the ANA test earlier than April 2021. He believes this should have been done earlier when his wife was seen by the Trust in 2020.

17. He said his daughter has Raynaud’s and she went to see the same consultant his wife saw in 2021, but privately. He explains they carried out an ANA test which was positive. They then carried out a nailford capillaroscopy.

18. We have carefully considered Mr H’s date of knowledge. To assist us in doing so, we obtained information from Mr H, during an introductory call, documents he has sent to us, including his complaint form and the Trust’s complaint responses.

19. We consider Mr and Mrs H had cause to raise concerns/complaint following Mrs H’s attendance at the hospital in April 2021. This is because they more than likely knew at this point that the Trust had not carried out the relevant tests and investigations before (ones carried out in April 2021), to establish if she had primary or secondary Raynaud’s.

20. This is further corroborated within Mr H’s complaint form, when he wrote that he was aware of the problem in late April 2021.

21. We are of the view Mr H’s date of knowledge is April 2021.

22. Mr H did not complain to the Trust until early July 2023 – two years and three months after becoming aware he had reason to complain. We received his complaint form in late July 2025 – four years and three months after his date of knowledge. His complaint is three years and three months outside of the statutory time limit.

23. For us to move the time limit to one side we must be satisfied the explanation given is reasonable.

24. Mr H does not think there was a delay in complaining to the Trust as he considers his date of knowledge was in 2023 when he says he received and read through the medical records.

25. For the reasons explained earlier, we consider Mr and Mrs H had cause to raise concerns/complaint following Mrs H’s attendance at the hospital in April 2021.

26. Within his complaint form, Mr H explained the reasons for the delay in bringing his complaint to us – following his complaint to the Trust - was because of the length of time his complaint was with the Trust - one year and eight months (from July 2023 to March 2025).

27. We have taken into account the length of time the complaint was in local resolution. However, Mr H’s complaint was outside the statutory time limit by the time he made a complaint to the Trust by one year and three months.

28. Although we recognise Mr H’s reasons for delay, the onus is on the complainant to make enquiries (with the organisation – in this case the Trust) when they are unhappy with the care and treatment they receive or think they should be receiving. Raising this as a complaint brings it to the attention of the organisation and allows it the opportunity to address the issue and if appropriate offer a suitable resolution.

29. There are several free independent NHS advocacy services that Mr H could have discussed and assisted him in raising a complaint with the Trust sooner than he did and bringing the matter to us, as well as explaining about the legal time limits.

30. The Trust’s website explains that if the person is not happy with how the Trust has dealt with their complaint, it explains how they can bring their complaint to us.

31. Our website explains there is a 12-month time limit for making a complaint to us.

32. We are sorry to learn of Mr and Mrs H’s experience with the Trust and the impact this had on them.

33. We are not persuaded there was any significant barrier during the majority of the time between the date of knowledge and the point Mr H came to us. Although we acknowledge the experiences he was going through may cause some delay, we are not satisfied the total length of time taken in bringing the complaint to us is reasonable for us to move the statutory time limit to one side. We cannot investigate his complaint any further.

34. We are sorry to learn of Mr H’s complaint about the Trust. Our decision is not made without recognition of the impact this is having on him, and we are sorry if our decision causes any further upset. We hope we have explained the thorough consideration we have given to our decision and clearly outlined the reasons for it.

1. We are sorry to learn of the death of Mr H’s wife and their experiences with the Trust. We acknowledge this was and continues to be an upsetting time for Mr H.

2. We have carefully considered Mr H’s complaint about the Trust. Having done so, we cannot investigate this complaint further. This is because his complaint falls outside the statutory time limit for us to investigate and we have not seen strong enough reasons to set this to one side.

3. Our decision is not made without recognition of the distressing circumstances around the events. We have explained the reasons for our decision below.