Advisers

Brenda Prentice made this Freedom of Information request to Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman did not have the information requested.

Brenda Prentice

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

In this request:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/r...

PHSO state there is no policy to discourage pursuing any findings of clinical advisers. We are able to expand or widen scope.

Jack Kellett in an email said. 'I think we need to go further; removing irrelevant comments about fire risk, pressure area care, nutrition etc. We do not need to go on a fishing trip for possible failings in much less relevant areas.

My sense is that if the adviser is asked to be specific, rather than opinion based about the standards and Codes.....we end up with a much less starkly critical commentary.....the scale of failings will appear more balanced...'

This advisers report changed out of all recognition from the original to the final report.

These comments do not fit with the PHSO statement in the previous question, review findings, ' We are able to expand or widen scope'.

Please tell me when did the policy change?

Will cases such as the one referred to be held as 'historic'?

Yours faithfully,

Brenda Prentice

InformationRights, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

3 Attachments

Dear Brenda Prentice

 

RE: Your information request: R0000687

                            

I write in response to your email to the Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman (PHSO) dated 13 May 2019 requesting information under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000.

 

Request:

 

In this request:

 

[1]https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url...

 

PHSO state there is no policy to discourage pursuing any findings of
clinical advisers. We are able to expand or widen scope.

 

Jack Kellett in an email said. 'I think we need to go further; removing
irrelevant comments about fire risk, pressure area care, nutrition etc. We
do  not need to go on a fishing trip  for possible failings in much less
relevant areas.

 

My sense is that if the adviser is asked to be specific, rather than
opinion based about the standards and Codes.....we end up with a much less
starkly critical commentary.....the scale of failings will appear more
balanced...'

 

This advisers report changed out of all recognition from the original to
the final report.

 

These comments do not fit with the PHSO statement in the previous
question, review findings, ' We are able to expand or widen scope'.

 

Please tell me when did the policy change?

 

Will cases such as the one referred to be held as 'historic'?

 

Response

 

Please be aware that there is no requirement under the FOI Act to answer
questions which would mean creating new information or giving an opinion
or judgment that is not already recorded. No recorded information is held
regarding the questions raised in your request. However, to clarify in
line with Section 16 of the Act, our previous response issued to you under
reference R0000607 was correct. 

 

Finally, we have already confirmed our position in relation to the subject
of ‘historic’ and ‘historic cases’ as part of your previous information
requests and so we will not comment further on this matter.

 

If you believe we have made an error in the way I have processed your
information request, it is open to you to request an internal review.  You
can do this by writing to us by post or by email to
[2][Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email]. You will need to specify that the
nature of the issue is and we can consider the matter further. Beyond
that, it is open to you to complain to the Information Commissioner’s
Office ([3]www.ico.org.uk).

 

Yours sincerely

 

Freedom of Information/Data Protection Team

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

W: [4]www.ombudsman.org.uk

 

Follow us on

[5]fb  [6]twitter  [7]linkedin

 

 

References

Visible links
1. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url...
2. mailto:[Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email]
3. http://www.ico.org.uk/
4. http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
5. http://www.facebook.com/phsombudsman
6. http://www.twitter.com/PHSOmbudsman
7. http://www.linkedin.com/company/parliame...

Brenda Prentice

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman's handling of my FOI request 'Advisers'.

I have read all the links supplied to me and I can see no reason for the injustice of avoidable death cases to be rejected or clinical reports to be interfered with by cases workers.

Nothing I have read tells how or why cases are rejected when they clearly do fall under the guidance supplied to me.

Nothing has told me why clinical adviser reports from doctors of the wrong discipline are accepted or why case workers do tell advisers to change or edit their advice, thus changing their original meaning.

When the service received from PHSO is admitted as poor why must the decision be correct? I can see nothing in the guidance to support this.

I am therefore requesting a review of why clinical adviser reports are interfered with (my experience) and why admitted poor service can have no reflection on decisions which are always right.

There is no guidance on this as far as I an able to work out.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a...

Yours faithfully,

Brenda Prentice

InformationRights, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

3 Attachments

Dear Ms Prentice

 

Thank you for your email requesting an internal review of the response to
your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOI Act).

 

I am sorry that you are dissatisfied with the response provided but, as
explained in my colleague's letter to you dated 17 April 2019 in regards
to your request dated 27 March 2019 , there is no requirement under the
FOI Act to answer questions which would mean creating new information or
giving an opinion or judgment that is not already recorded and the
Ombudsman did not hold information relevant to your request. However, in
order to try to assist you, clarifying information was provided.

 

You then sent in a further FOI Act request on 13 May 2019, again asking
about the Ombudsman's policy on review but also asking about the
categorisation of "historic cases", which I understand was also the
subject of earlier requests. My colleague informed you by way of letter
dated 23 May 2019 that the previous response dated 17 April 2019 was
correct and reiterating that there was no requirement to create new
information nor to give opinions.

 

You have now sent in a request purporting to seek an internal review. You
state that you "can see no reason for the injustice of avoidable death
cases to be rejected or clinical reports to be interfered with in any
way". The issues you raise appear to me to be as follows:

 

1. How or why are cases rejected when they, in your view, fall under the
Guidance supplied to you;

2. Why clinical adviser reports from doctors of the wrong discipline are
accepted;

3. Why case workers tell advisers to change or edit their advice;

4. When the service from PHSO is poor why must the decision be correct.

 

You then confirm that the issue(s) upon which you seek a review are:

 

1. Why clinical adviser reports are interfered with; and

2. Why poor service does not reflect on the decisions which are always
right

 

These are not, in our view, matters upon which an internal review could
assist. An internal review would be appropriate whether you felt , for
example, the information provided was not full or whether a refusal was
appropriate. The questions you raise seek opinions and therefore we do not
believe that this is are a request for information which would fall under
the FOI legislation nor which we could properly perform a review process
upon. In addition, it appears that you are expressing your
views/conclusions within your questions. You will, of course, appreciate
that these are not necessarily accepted by the Ombudsman and are, in any
event, not a matter which can be addressed under the FOI process.

 

In any event, for the avoidance of doubt, we do not hold any information
in relation to your queries in any event, save for the Service Model
Guidance, which you have previously been advised of and which is available
on the Ombudsman's website via the below link:

[1]https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/co...

 

If you are unhappy with the Ombudsman's treatment of any case you have
brought, you would need to speak to your caseworker. You can find
information about this process on the Ombudsman's website via the link
below:

[2]https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/fe...

 

If your concerns are more general, then I should respectfully suggest you
seek independent legal advice as to any potential causes of action which
may be open to you.

 

If you are dissatisfied with this response in relation to your information
request, it is open to you to complain to the Information Commissioner’s
Office and you will find details of how to bring such a complaint on their
website([3]www.ico.org.uk).

 

I hope this is helpful.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Catriona Granger

Freedom of Information/Data Protection Team

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

W: [4]www.ombudsman.org.uk

 

Follow us on

[5]fb  [6]twitter  [7]linkedin

 

show quoted sections

Brenda Prentice

Dear InformationRights,
Dear Catriona Granger,

I take to that you are new to PHSO as I have not hear from you before.

I have tried all ways I can think of to ask for my son's case to be looked at again. The supposed 'review' promised by Mr Behrens could not have taken place as stated. PHSO has said it destroys records after a year, so it could not have reassessed the case.

I've been told the case is closed and made historic, but there is no definition of historic. I'm told 'it is not a term used by PHSO' and then we find letters from PHSO where that team is used.

I'm told I have had a payoff and the case is closed. This even though PHSO say my son's death was avoidable. Nothing has been done.

It is not true that I've had a pay off. What I had was payment for the research I had to do. (I sent the invoice to PHSO and retained a copy) This research had to be done in order for the nurse adviser to eventually admit she had lied.
She changed her advice and the case was then up held. This became the only case of mine up held by PHSO, even though I brought many cases and the PHSO said my son's death was avoidable!

Now I'm told his case is historic, but there is apparently no such thing.

Respectfully, if I had the money I would go to law, but PHSO know that people come to it for a fair hearing, it takes experience to know that there is no such thing from PHSO.

And after all this one might think there would be a policy or at least some guidance, but no! Nothing!

What a shambles, it's getting worse too.

Yours sincerely,

Brenda Prentice

J Roberts left an annotation ()

PACAC 23 November 2020:

https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevi...

'Q36. Lloyd Russell-Moyle: I think you have touched on this slightly, but I will ask it. Has progress been made on the recommendation of using clinical advisers? Has that been delayed at all by Covid-19?

Rob Behrens: Yes and yes. We have made progress in this critical project but it has been delayed by the resource available, which has had to be put into managing the pandemic. We are not as far along the line as we would like to be but some key things have been done. As I explained to you, we now make sure that people have sight of the clinical advice on both sides in advance of the provisional view being made. We now have a system of ensuring that clinical advisers are not just asked questions about the case but they participate in a discussion of issues that might be outside of the original complaint. We hold multi-team meetings of clinical advisers and case handlers, internally and externally, in very complex cases to make sure that there is a conversation between the clinical adviser and the caseworker. Liam Donaldson said that he picked up an overwhelming view that our case handlers deferred to the clinical advisers unnecessarily and that that was not a good thing.'

Brenda Prentice left an annotation ()

This has thread has been curtailed as the annotations have been deemed to be spam.