East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust

3. Mr O is concerned about the care and treatment his mother, Mrs J, received from the Trust from April 2024. In particular, he says it is unclear who was responsible for the decision to place his mother on a pain-management pathway rather than investigate the underlying cause of her symptoms, and what the rationale for that decision was.

4. Mr O says the failure to investigate his mother's symptoms contributed to a delayed cancer diagnosis, causing prolonged pain and suffering. He says this resulted in permanent nerve damage, disability, loss of independence, psychological harm, a reduced quality of life, and has affected his mother's life expectancy.

5. As an outcome to his complaint, Mr O is seeking an explanation of the decisions made about his mother's care, an apology for any failings, and service improvements.

8. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has, or had, the option to take legal action unless we consider it would be unreasonable to expect them to do so.

9. We do not decide whether legal action will be successful. Instead, we consider whether pursuing legal action is, or was, a reasonable way of addressing the concerns raised.

10. Mr O complains about the care and treatment provided to Mrs J from April 2024 onwards. He says there was a failure to investigate her symptoms appropriately and that decisions were made to manage her symptoms rather than identify the underlying cause of her condition. He says this resulted in a delayed diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma (a type of cancer) and caused Mrs J avoidable pain and suffering, disability, loss of independence, psychological harm and a reduction in her life expectancy.

11. Mr O told us he has instructed solicitors, who have obtained supportive expert evidence from a consultant clinical oncologist. He explained a letter of notification has been sent to the Trust and the legal claim concerns allegations of negligence relating to missed scans, a delayed diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma and the impact this had on Mrs J 's prognosis and outcome.

12. We recognise Mr O has raised serious concerns about the care Mrs J received and the impact this has had on her. We understand he believes opportunities were missed to identify her cancer at an earlier stage and this has contributed to significant pain, suffering, loss of independence and uncertainty about her future health. We appreciate why he is seeking answers about what happened and accountability for any failings in her care.

13. We have carefully considered whether there are any aspects of Mr O's complaint sufficiently separate from the legal claim for us to consider. We have concluded that there are not.

14. Although Mr O told us he is primarily seeking an explanation, an apology and service improvements from us, the issues he wants us to examine are closely connected with the matters being pursued through the clinical negligence process.

15. In particular, understanding who was responsible for the decision to place Mrs J on a pain-management pathway, whether that decision was appropriate, whether further investigations should have been undertaken, and whether opportunities to diagnose her cancer earlier were missed, are all central questions within the ongoing legal claim.

16. To investigate these matters, we would need to consider the same clinical decisions, review much of the same evidence and reach findings on issues that are already being examined through the legal process and supported by expert evidence. We consider there is significant overlap between this complaint and the legal claim.

17. The court process is better placed to determine disputed issues relating to clinical negligence, including whether there was a breach of duty, whether any failings caused harm, and what consequences flowed from those failings. We do not consider it would be appropriate for us to investigate while that process remains ongoing.

18. We recognise Mr O is also seeking outcomes a court cannot directly order, such as an apology and service improvements. However, these outcomes may arise as a consequence of the legal process. If, once the legal action has concluded, there are outstanding concerns or outcomes that have not been addressed and which fall within our remit, Mr O may return to us for further consideration.

19. We appreciate this decision may be disappointing for Mr O. It is clear he is seeking answers about what happened to his mother and the decisions made about her care. We recognise pursuing concerns of this nature can be both emotionally and practically demanding, particularly where there are ongoing questions about whether an earlier diagnosis could have altered the outcome for Mrs J.

20. Due to there being an active clinical negligence claim concerning substantially the same matters, we consider it reasonable for Mr O to continue pursuing that route before we consider whether there is any further role for us.

21. Once the legal process has concluded, Mr O may return to us if he has any remaining concerns or outstanding outcomes that have not been addressed and which fall within our remit. At that stage, we can consider whether there is any further action we can take.

22. If Mr O wishes to bring the complaint back to us, he should do so as soon as reasonably possible after the legal process has ended. This is because we have 12-month time limit which can affect our ability to investigate complaints.

23. While we note Mr O has been actively pursuing his concerns through the legal process, and we would take this into account when considering any issue relating to our time limits, we cannot guarantee we would exercise discretion in the future. We therefore encourage him not to delay in contacting us once the legal proceedings have concluded.

24. We thank Mr O for bringing these issues to our attention and we hope the ongoing legal process provides him with greater clarity about the concerns he has raised and helps him achieve the outcomes he is seeking.

1. We have carefully considered Mr O's complaint about East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). We recognise he has raised serious concerns about the care provided to his mother, Mrs J, and the significant impact he says this has had on her life and wellbeing. We understand he is looking for answers about the decisions made during her care and whether opportunities to diagnose her cancer earlier were missed.

2. Mr O is currently pursuing a clinical negligence claim concerning substantially the same matters. We have decided it is reasonable for him to continue pursuing that route and, for this reason, we will not take any further action on his complaint at this time. We explain our decision in more detail below.