North East London NHS Foundation Trust

7. Mr P complains on behalf of his mother, Mrs Q, regarding the community catheter care and treatment provided by Northeast London NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) between July 2024 and December 2025. He complains:

• the district nursing and integrated community teams did not consistently follow the (MDT) discharge care plan for catheter use, and used unsafe clinical practices outside manufacturer guidelines • the Trust did not escalate repeated catheter dislodgements/expulsions to urology specialists in a timely manner • there are inadequate documentation, clinical record-keeping and governance, including the absence of a Catheter Passport to explain why the MDT discharge care plan was deviated from and; • the Trust’s formal complaint responses are inadequate, contradictory and did not properly address or investigate why the specialist discharge plan was not adhered to.

8. Mr P says these failings caused Mrs Q to undergo repeated traumatic re-catheterisations, suffer severe pain, ongoing distress, anxiety and recurrently urinary tract infections (UTIs), resulting in a hospital admission for sepsis and exacerbating her delirium and dementia.

9. Mr P is seeking accountability, systemic learning and financial remedy at level 4-5 of our Severity of Injustice Scale (over £1250) for the distress and physical harm caused to his mother.

Community Catheter Care and Management

11. 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 Mr P to understand his circumstances and the outcomes he wants. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed but whether it would be a reasonable option to look in to.

12. Mr P complains about the clinical care provided to Mrs Q, specifically the district nursing staff did not adhere to her specialist discharge care plan, inserted incorrect catheter sizes and over-inflated a 10ml balloon contrary to clinical care plan. These alleged failings resulted in repeated traumatic re-catheterisations, recurrent infections, hospital admission for sepsis and worsening delirium.

13. An alternative legal remedy exists in court through a claim for clinical negligence. In considering whether it is reasonable for Mr P to pursue this route, we have noted that he is seeking financial remedy at Level 4/5 of our SOI scale for physical harm. A court is the established legal body equipped to assess clinical negligence and award appropriate financial compensation. This may exceed the levels of financial remedy we tend to recommend.

14. During a telephone call with Mr P on 22 July 2026, he confirmed he would consider legal action and agreed to explore this route. We therefore consider that an alternative legal remedy exists and that it is reasonable for Mr P to pursue it at this stage.

Escalation, Documentation and Complaint Handling

15. As all components of this complaint arise from the same core events surrounding Mrs Q’s community catheter care and treatment, the same legal remedy (a civil claim for clinical negligence) covers all complaint issues raised. Therefore, our consideration under paragraph 18 applies to all parts of the complaint.

Conclusion

16. Having carefully considered all the information provided by Mr P we have decided that an Alternative Legal Remedy is available in a court of law regarding the clinical care, treatment and alleged physical harm caused to Mrs Q.

17. Mr P has agreed to explore taking a claim to a clinical negligence solicitor, and we consider it is reasonable for him to pursue this legal route.

18. For these reasons we will not consider the complaint further at this time.

1. We have carefully considered Mr P’s complaint, on behalf of his mother, Mrs Q, about the Northeast London NHS Trust.

2. We consider Mr P could take legal action on the matter he has brought to us, and he has informed us he intends to explore that path, to resolve his complaint.

3. We recognise how difficult this situation has been for Mr P and his family. We appreciate the significant distress, pain and discomfort Mrs Q experienced during her community catheter care, as well as the worry caused by her recurrent infections, hospital admissions and worsening health.

4. Section 4 (1) of the Health Service Commissioners act 1993, says we cannot investigate a complain if there is or was a legal remedy available through proceedings in a court of law, unless we are satisfied it is not reasonable to expect the person to pursue that legal route.

5. In this case, Mr P raises concerns about potential medical negligence, due to the repeated physical trauma, infections and sepsis his mother suffered. These matters can be addressed by taking legal action through a court. Mr P is seeking a Level 4/5 financial remedy for the impact on his mother. A court of law is the established legal body equipped to evaluate clinical injury and award appropriate financial compensation.

6. Following a telephone call on 22 July 2026, Mr P agreed exploring a claim with a clinical negligence solicitor is the primary route he wishes to pursue. Therefore, we have decided that a legal remedy exists and it is reasonable for Mr P to pursue it.