Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust

4. Ms E complains about the following aspects of care the Trust provided to her late mother, Ms L on in January 2023:

• the treating team repeatedly told the family her mother did not require dialysis • two doctors placed Ms L on an end-of-life pathway without informing the family • a doctor misinformed the family there was nothing medically they could do for her mother and to pay their respects when she would have benefited from dialysis • a delay in referring her mother to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU).

5. Ms E also complains about the way the Trust handled her complaint.

6. Ms E says by the time the Trust gave her mother dialysis it was too late and she died in February. Ms E says the family felt misinformed and excluded from Ms L’s medical prognosis and interventions. She feels if the Trust has promptly transferred her mother to ICU, the outcome may have been different. Ms E says as a family, they have dealt with grief following her mother’s death and their mental health has deteriorated.

7. Ms E would like a thorough investigation and a financial remedy.

9. 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.

10. Ms E told us she became aware of the issues in her mother’s care on 23 January 2023, whilst her mother was still in hospital. This means Ms E needed to raise the complaint with us by 23 January 2024, for her complaint to be within our time limit.

11. Ms E first approached us with her complaint on 12 February 2026, which was over two years beyond our time limit. Her complaint about the way the Trust handled her concerns was also around seven months out of time.

12. Ms E raised her concerns with the Trust on 12 February 2024, which was just over a year after the issues began to occur. While this date was slightly outside the year timeframe that most NHS organisations require, we have no significant concerns about this because it was within a year of Ms L’s death.

13. The Trust responded to Ms E’s complaint on 8 August 2024, almost six months later. We note this was about five weeks later than its initial estimate of responding within 90 working days, which would have taken it to 20 June 2024. Nonetheless, we find this additional time did not materially affect the overall process.

14. On 30 December, five months after the Trust’s written response, Ms E responded to the Trust by email to express her dissatisfaction with it. The Trust replied the next day explaining it had nothing further to add and that Ms E could approach the Ombudsman. Ms E approached us on 12 February 2026, a year and one month after the Trust had referred her to us.

15. As such, we have identified two significant delays in Ms E pursuing her complaint with both the Trust and with us. We asked Ms E the reasons for these delays.

16. Ms E explained to us that, over this time, she had been caring for her father, who has multiple chronic health conditions that worsened after her mother’s passing. Ms E also described how her own health and emotional wellbeing have been affected. She provided evidence that she sought bereavement therapy in both July 2024 and September 2025.

17. We are truly sorry to hear about the impact her mother’s passing, her father’s poor health, and her own challenges with grief and emotional wellbeing have had on Ms E. We recognise how difficult and overwhelming this time must have been, as well as the dedication required to care for a loved one in such circumstances.

18. Whilst we accept the reasons explained by Ms E may have accounted for some of the delay, we do not agree this would account for the full length of the delays identified. For this reason, we are unable to set aside the time limit and so we will not be able to investigate Ms E’s concerns.

19. We regret any further upset this decision may cause to Ms E. It is important we act in line with the law and our policy when deciding whether to accept complaints. We would like to thank Ms E for sharing her concerns with us, and we sincerely hope our explanation helps her understand our decision.

1. We have carefully considered Ms E’s complaint about Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (the Trust). First, we want to say how sorry we are to hear about the death of her mother, Ms L. We offer Ms E our sincere condolences during what we know must have been a very difficult time.

2. After considering the details of the complaint, we have found that it falls outside the time limit set by the law. Unfortunately, we have not found a good enough reason to set this time limit aside and investigate Ms E’s complaint further.

3. We understand this decision will be upsetting and disappointing for Ms E, and we are truly sorry for any distress it may cause. We have explained our full reasons for this below.