Skip to main content

Complaint Outcomes

As a Trust, we are committed to continuously improving and learning from complaints. All formal complaints are fully investigated and the lessons learned are shared amongst the teams involved and across the Trust to avoid similar situations arising.

If the complaint investigation and substantive evidence is found to support the all of the allegations made, the complaint is recorded as ‘upheld’. If the complaint and substantive evidence is found to support the some of the allegations, the complaint is recorded as ‘partially upheld’. Where there is no evidence to support any allegations made, the complaint is recorded as ‘not upheld’.

We are committed to being an open organisation and as such we are happy to provide information regarding the outcomes of some of our upheld and partially upheld complaints.


  • Q3

    A patient raised concerns that a consent form relating to a biopsy procedure was not clear (the information seemed very similar to another procedure which caused the patient to become confused about which procedure was being completed)

    Action: An apology was given. More detailed information was included on the consent form to ensure patients understand what procedure will be undertaken. A reminder was also sent to all doctors in the area concerned in relation to this issue.

    The patient complained there was not sufficient information in relation to two different procedures.

    Action: An apology was given. A leaflet containing information about both procedures to supplement the verbal information given to patients has been developed. 

    A patient complained visiting times were not adhered to on Maternity Base and this had a negative impact on her stay on the ward.

    Action: An apology was given. The Communications Team advertised the visiting times via social media and community midwives now inform patients of the visiting times during the antenatal care. A questionnaire is being developed to review the serviced users opinion of this issue. The visiting times are now highly visible in ward areas.

  • Q2

    One patient highlighted concerns in relation to staff attitude and behaviour on Delivery Suite, the patient felt this had an impact on her labour experience.

    Action: An apology was given. The manager ensured they discussed the complaint with the staff members involved in order to ensure they reflected on the patients experience and learned from the concerns raised.

    The patient raised concerns in relation to breastfeeding, she felt she was not supported and due to this decided to bottle feed her baby.

    Action: An apology was given. Improvements were made to the Infant Team Referral process which included ensuring staff place all referrals on the electronic system.

    A patient was unhappy that she was not informed she could not check in for multiple appointments using the Self Check In kiosks and therefore had to check into the clinic at the Reception Desk, this led to a delay in being seen.

    Action: An apology was given. A new sign was devised instructing patients if they have multiple appointments to check in at the Main Reception desk rather than using the Self Check In kiosks.

  • Q1

    The Genetics Department received a complaint in relation to their communication about timescales and managing expectations for genetic testing (including the 100,000 Genomes Project)

    Action: An apology was given. The Genetics Department determined their communication to patients and their families about genetic testing waiting times needed to be more detailed and clearer in order to manage expectations about when results would be received by their teams.

    A patient raised concerns about a nurse taking blood in the Gynaecology Emergency Department (GED) and the number of failed attempts.

    Action: An apology was given to the complainant.  A document was introduced in patient notes that indicates any failed attempts of taking blood to help identify any training needs that may be required.

    The patient raised concerns they were not informed of their care plan while admitted to Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust.

    Action: An apology was given and a new safety huddle template was developed to identify any deficits or known risks with regard to patient care.


  • Q4

    A spelling mistake, in the envelope window section of a letter, was identified by the patient.

    Action: An apology was offered and the Hewitt Fertility Centre (HFC) Administration Team process was amended to instruct staff to check three patient identifiers prior to sending out letters in the post. This was introduced to ensure all spellings, names and addresses are correct and it is also reiterated at Team Meetings.

    The patient raised concerns about their experience on the Gynaecology Unit following their missed miscarriage.

    Action: An apology was offered to the patient and a review of the miscarriage pathway was undertaken which included a Task & Finish Group which included input from medical, nursing and midwifery staff as well as patient feedback. Additional training was also provided to staff working on the Gynaecology Unit involved in caring for patients who have suffered a miscarriage.

    The patient raised concerns the emergency buzzer located in the bathroom on Maternity Base was tied up and out of reach.

    Action: An apology was given to the patient and a daily check of the buzzers and their accessibility was introduced on the ward to ensure patient safety in the event of a fall.

  • Q3


    A patient did not feel reassured or supported by Community Midwives. Patient raised poor attitude of administrator on booking line.

    Action: An apology was given regarding the lack of contact information for the community midwives when there was a change. Actions have been but in place to prevent this from happening again. Line Manager addressed issue identified with the booking team administrator and will continue to monitor.

    A patient had Rhesus D Negative blood type and did not receive the required Anti-D injection within 72 hours of delivering her daughter.

    Action: An apology was given. The process around the Anti-D injection was reviewed and amended to make this more robust. Staff made aware of the changes and the importance of the process reiterated.

    A patient had not received her test results in the agreed timeframe.

    Action: An apology was given. Results part of a national program and follow ups conducted with the national body responsible to expedite results.

    A patient received a referral letter and the name of the confidential clinic and referral information were visible in the address window.

    Action: An apology was given. Administration staff remaindered of their responsibilities in relation to Information Governance. An extra check has been introduced to reduce the risk of this happening again.