FHFT Libraries Reviews 4

Title: Deeply Concerning Experience – Urgent Need for Accountability

I feel compelled to share my experience with Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust in the hope that it might help others and prompt meaningful scrutiny.

I was referred to the neurology department but was inexplicably deregistered from the waiting list without my knowledge or consent. Despite repeated efforts, I received no clear explanation, no notification, and no offer of support. Key documentation — such as appointment letters and referrals — was never sent to me or my GP, and my formal complaints were met with silence, delay, or generic responses.

The lack of transparency and accountability was extremely distressing and has significantly impacted both my health and trust in the system. I have since contacted both the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and other regulatory bodies, as this experience raises serious questions about patient safety, communication, and data handling.

While I understand the pressures the NHS is under, no one should be left in the dark about their care — especially when the consequences are so personal and long-lasting.

I hope this feedback is taken seriously and contributes to improved standards for future patients.

As the Personal Representative (PR) for a deceased person (AF), I was concerned that the medical cause of death was unknown. Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust (FHFT) refused to provide the medical records in accordance the entitlement under Access to Health Records Act 1990 (AHRA1990) Sect(3)(1)(f) until a court claim was made (ref:LOOAF080). The first round of disclosure had records missing. Then FHFT provided a further 244 records. FHFT solicitors then filed the Trust’s defence to the Court. They told the court that “the Defendant’s position is that it has now provided all records in satisfaction of the Claimant’s claim.” and asked for the case to be dismissed. When FHFT were asked to endorse the solicitor’s statement to the court FHFT provided another 32 pages of records. It took several rounds to obtain the records. One record may still be missing and FHFT’s explanation about it is dubious.

FHFT correctly informed the PR that a Discharge Summary (DS) is intended to give an onward treating clinician the necessary information that is required to continue care and treatment once discharged. FHFT were evasive regarding the PR’s concerns that the DSs did not contain necessary information. The DSs are inaccurate, incomplete, misleading and inconsistent with other medical records:

1) One DS mentions treatment for hospital acquired pneumonia but fails to mention treatment for sepsis, which is a very serious condition. It can cause death and/or prolonged deconditioning which did occur;

2) The DS from FHFT re-hab unit is incomplete; it fails to mention a large fixed hiatus hernia, Nausea/Vomiting (N&V) and reflux disease. Antisickness medicines tried over many days were ineffective. FHFT then effectively treated N&V with medicine (a PPI). From documented evidence, the family became aware of the hernia seven days before death and reported it to an onward treating medic. The medic’s medical record indicates that the hernia was significant to treatment FHFT had given for reflux and N&V. After discharge from rehab, the medicine FHFT found to be effective was stopped and medicine that FHFT found ineffective then was started. Revelation of the hernia made it apparent why a PPI effectively treated the hernia symptoms and was essential medicine. By then, it was too late. Oral intake become insufficient to sustain life and medicine could no longer be taken orally. The hernia and its symptoms (reflux, N&V) were active issues that should have been on the DS because that information was necessary for continuing care.

3) The re-hab DS states “treated for UTI … at FPH”. The UTI was identified as Enterococcus. An antibiotic was given to which the bacterium was resistant. Other antibiotics that would be effective were not given. No medical record shows usage of an effective antibiotic. The UTI was mistreated. The DS wrongly implies that UTI treatment was effective. Any medical professional relying on the discharge letter would be misled. Enterococcus UTI was found again after discharge. When asked, FHFT refused to amend the DS to state the UTI bacterium and antibiotic used;

4) The re-hab DS fails to mention high blood calcium and low blood sodium (hyponatremia), which if untreated can cause deconditioning. Both were active issues and therefore necessary information;

5) The re-hab DS specified blood pressure lowering medicine to be given. The consultant who arranged re-hab had given instructions to stop the medicine because blood pressure was already low. The consultant explained that not stopping the medicine could adversely affect mobility. Contrary to instructions, re-hab continued giving the medicine. The medicine was stopped after discharge because it was and had been unnecessary.

FHFT do not see any reason to raise an investigation under the Serious Incident Framework. FHFT terminated communication with the PR.

FHFT acknowledged that they did not handle the request for medical records in accordance with AHRA1990. FHFT said that they have changed their processes to ensure all future requests comply.

A freedom of information request established that in three years prior to the claim FHFT declined on 49 occasions to provide medical records to PRs. So, potentially, 48 other PRs have also been wrongly denied records. Any PR who has been refused medical records by FHFT may wish to check carefully their entitlement.

A&E staff are amazing. Reception staff at main entrance are blatantly racist and rude.PALS are a waste of time they do not deal with complaints.

I had a very negative experience with the Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust. In my opinion, their complaints handling is profoundly unethical and shoddy.