Deeply disappointed by the handling of a serious patient-safety complaint

Our family submitted a detailed formal complaint to Mediclinic Morningside on 14 May 2026 regarding the care my mother received during prolonged and complicated hospital admissions.

The complaint raised serious concerns regarding patient safety, delays in investigations and clinical decision-making, ICU and nursing care, medication and sedation practices, feeding management, an aspiration event, responses to clinical deterioration, communication with the family and other aspects of her care.

After waiting several months for a formal response, we were extremely disappointed that many of the substantive concerns raised were simply not addressed.

More concerningly, the response contained a significant factual error, stating that my mother had received a PEG feeding tube. She never had a PEG inserted. The procedure did not proceed, and she remained on an NGT. This left us questioning how thoroughly her clinical records had been reviewed during the investigation.

We subsequently requested escalation and an independent review because we remained concerned about the lack of meaningful engagement with the patient-safety and clinical-governance issues raised.

We have now been advised that because the specialists practising at the hospital are independent practitioners, Mediclinic cannot answer questions on their behalf, and that an external investigation can be pursued through the HPCSA.

We understand the distinction between the responsibilities of independent practitioners and those of the hospital. However, our complaint was never limited to individual doctors. It included concerns regarding hospital care, patient safety, nursing and ICU management, monitoring, communication and systems of care.

After more than three months, it is deeply disappointing that a complaint of this seriousness has resulted in so little apparent accountability or meaningful explanation of what was identified, what could have been done differently, and what measures have been implemented to protect future patients.

Families should not have to fight this hard simply to have legitimate patient-safety concerns comprehensively investigated.

We have now requested that the matter be escalated to senior management within Mediclinic and will pursue the appropriate external channels where necessary.

Our family did not seek confrontation. We sought answers, accountability and assurance that lessons would be learnt so that another patient and family would not have the same experience.