University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust

3. Mr A complains the Trust rescheduled his surgery to have his bladder stones lasered and prostate reduced (Transurethral Resection of the Prostate (TURP)) surgery four times between June 2022 and March 2024 and failed to communicate adequately with him during this time.

4. Mr A says delaying these surgeries allowed his condition to worsen meaning that the Trust could not perform the TURP surgery instead having to replace it with a Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP) surgery in March 2024. He says this meant the Trust was unable to perform the surgery to widen his prostate at the same time as removing his bladder stones. This resulted in an additional unnecessary surgery. He says the delay in treatment left him on self-catheterisation for an unnecessarily long period of time causing him pain with swelling and bleeding, which restricted his daily life as he was unable to go out without catheter tubes. The nature of his restrictions required him to retire from his job in May 2023 as he could not cope with catheterisation at work.

5. As an outcome Mr A would like reimbursement of £10,181 for the cost of private treatment, and service improvements.

6. Mr A had a flexible cystoscopy and a CT scan at the Trust on 13 May 2022. A flexible cystoscopy is a procedure used by doctors to examine the inside of the bladder and urethra using a thin, flexible tube called cystoscope. After the procedure, the Trust told Mr A he required two surgical operations – a laser operation to reduce bladder stones and an operation to widen his prostate. The Trust listed him for the bladder stones operation on 7 June 2022 and the prostate widening operation on 13 June 2022. It also placed him on catheter disposable tubes for urinating while waiting for the operations.

7. On 1 July 2023, Mr A received another flexible cystoscopy. The Trust then listed him for both the bladder stone reduction and prostate widening surgery date on 8 January 2024. A week later he received a revised date of 16 January 2024. Two weeks later the Trust revised the date to 15 March 2024.

8. On 15 March 2024, Mr A attended the Trust but only the bladder stones reduction surgery was carried out. The Trust says that theoretically the bladder stones surgery can be done at the same time as prostatic surgery in expert hands. However, HoLEP (a surgical operation used to remove obstructing prostate tissue) is a lengthy procedure, and adding another surgery can extend the operation time, increasing the risk of complications such as bleeding, infection, and anaesthetic-related issues.

9. On 9 April 2024, Mr A attended a private consultation for his prostate condition. On 8 July 2024, Mr A had a HoLEP surgery at the New Hall Hospital.

12. The law says a person needs to make their complaint to us within a year of becoming aware of the problem. We cannot investigate complaints brought to us after one year, unless we consider there is a good reason to do so. We have discussed this with Mr A to understand the reasons why he could not do so. We have also considered the time the organisation has taken to respond to Mr A.

13. Mr A complains about events from June 2022 to March 2024. He says he only became aware of his reason for complaint in March 2024 when the Trust failed to perform both surgeries at the same time. At the latest, Mr A was aware of all matters raised in this complaint by 15 March 2024. Mr A needed to approach us by 15 March 2025 for his complaint to be in time.

14. Mr A approached us on 10 July 2025 (3 months and 25 days out of time). Following his surgery on 15 March 2024 Mr A complained to the Trust on 12 August 2024 - a delay of 4 months, 28 days. Mr A sought a private consultation in May 2024 where the consultant told him the bladder stones would return and grow again if the prostate was not dealt with. Mr A felt that the operation of March 2024 would therefore need to be repeated if the prostate operation was not performed soon. He says that he was still on the NHS waiting during this time and expected the operation date would come through. However, the private operation was scheduled for 8 July 2024 and as he had not yet received his NHS surgery date for the same operation he chose to continue privately.

15. We asked Mr A’s daughter why he waited until after his private surgery to complain to the Trust which he did on 12 August 2024 approximately four weeks after his private surgery. She said they had been chasing for information since 2022 verbally but did not know how to formally complain until her colleague informed her of the Trust’s patient advice and liaison service (PALS) in August 2024.

16. Following the initial complaint of August 2024 the Trust responded on 29 October 2024 inviting Mr A to return to it if he was dissatisfied. Mr A returned to the Trust on 14 January 2025 (a delay of 2 months and 16 days). The Trust provided its final response on 29 April 2025 referring Mr A to us. He approached us on 10 July 2025 (a delay of 2 months, 11 days from referral).

17. In summary while we understand Mr A was unsure how to complain, we have not seen evidence that he was prevented from asking the Trust how to do so or from finding out about its complaints process sooner. Once the Trust had responded there were further delays that have put Mr A outside of our time limit. Without any exceptional circumstances, we have decided not to set aside the time limit in the case. We understand that this may be disappointing to Mr A and our decision is in no way meant to minimise what was clearly a difficult period for him. We wish him well in his continued healing.

1. We have carefully considered Mr A’s complaint about University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). The complaint falls outside of our time limit, and we have decided there is no good reason for us to put our time limit aside to consider it further.

We recognise that Mr A describes a difficult and prolonged period of uncertainty while waiting for treatment, and that this had a significant impact on his day-to-day life. We understand that our decision may be disappointing. It is in no way intended to minimise the events that occurred.

2. We consider that Mr A could have approached us much sooner than he did and as such we are unable to set aside the time limit in this case.