BackThe Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman reviewed 150 complaints it had already investigated including upheld and not upheld cases. It looked at the quality of NHS Trusts’ investigations into complaints alleging avoidable harm as well as complaints about events where a Serious Untoward Incident (SUI) had taken place.
The review focused on acute trusts and a series of questions were asked about the quality of the NHS investigation and the evidence relied on. Questions included: whether the original investigation had access to all the relevant clinical records, had obtained written statements, interviewed key staff, and obtained a clinical review and whether that was independent.
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s main findings show:
- Over one-third of NHS investigations were not good enough to identify if something had gone wrong.
- 28 of the 150 cases should have been investigated by the NHS as a Serious Untoward Incident (SUI).
- Of those 28 cases, 71% had a complaint that did not trigger an SUI investigation.
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, Julie Mellor, said: “We are the final tier of the complaints system and see a range of complaints including allegations of avoidable death and harm. We reviewed 150 of these complaints and found significant variation in the quality of NHS investigations. Investigations weren’t carried out when they should have been and when they were carried out they did not find out or explain why failings happened. When people make a complaint that they have been seriously harmed they should expect it to be taken seriously and thoroughly investigated.”
For the full press release, please visit the website of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.
Source: Office of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, UK
