Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

I am aware of an outstanding request for general filed information in this case at https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c... but I have not recently been updated on progress.

This request is more specific asking to see the advice used by the PHSO when negotiating a so-called resolution in case 224883 in November 2015.

You have said caseworkers are lay and not trained in medical matters. In the case mentioned the caseworker identified only one but serious failure in a catalogue of many, contributing to the outcome: my son’s death.

In an extraordinary statement summing up yet outwardly playing down the importance of the failure, your caseworker said “even if [the NHS authority] had carried out [correct and accepted practice of identifying Carers in mental health in a Care Programme], “the outcome would probably have been the same”.

You have been made aware that the failure to communicate in a care dialogue was the main drive of my complaint to the heath authority before my son died, but that was totally ignored in this context, as was my bringing NHS Practice to your attention with reference to published sources.

For many years, especially for people in need of treatment but ‘without insight' (as confirmed in this case by specialist professional), it has been strongly promoted health practice to support such persons by ensuring dialogue with ‘carer(s)’. As part of NICE guidelines it is a patient’s and their potential carer’s right to be fully informed and consulted, and to be treated with best practice; and this is enshrined in NHS ‘constitution’. No record of such consultation has been shown. It did not happen.

I. Please copy to me the written or verbal ‘professional’ advice the caseworker was referring to when this extraordinary—and offensive statement, against NHS principles—was used.

II. Please tell me who gave this opinion to PHSO, and their status and qualification.

III. Were they NHS employed or from NHS background?

Considering that the health Trust and GP involved had five years of opportunity to apply the correct care pathway and involve Carers, I can not see that the failure was as trivial as you attempt to suggest; hence my question.

Advice such as this diminishes the sincerity of PHSO health investigations, and should not have passed the merest quality checks. I will be pressing for a full and candid reply at the highest level within or outside the PHSO.

Yours faithfully,

C Rock

informationrights@ombudsman.org.uk, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman


Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your correspondence.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

PLEASE NOTE I am still waiting for a response to this enquiry and you have not answered my question first placed in November the year you issued the this statement November 2015 on the anniversary of my sons avoidable death and contributed to by Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Trust and his GPs Bernays and Whitehouse of Solihull West Midlands.

I can appreciate your reluctance to revisit past errors, and deliver open and honest responses countering PHSO previous wisdom, however I consider waiting nine years for a transparent inquiry into that negligence to be more than excessive and way beyond the target set and agreed by Government.

I telephoned you on 24th Sept requesting an update to proceedings with this complaint and with complaint F0002055 which has still not been progressed to balanced resolution.

The request for precise information regarding the advice received still stands as a personal request under DPA. viz what was the source of the professional wisdom passed to your lay advisers, and who gave it please?

Yours faithfully,

C Rock

informationrights@ombudsman.org.uk, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman


Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your correspondence.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

Brenda Prentice left an annotation ()

Just more unbelievable arrogance, and they get away with it. Well enough is enough!!!!

InformationRights, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear Mr Rock,

 

FDN-274880 - Your information request

 

Thank you for your email of 26 October 2017 requesting information under
the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA); held by the Parliamentary and
Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) under case reference HS-224883.  Your
exact request was:

 

“I.      Please copy to me the written or verbal professional advice the
caseworker was referring to when this extraordinaryand offensive
statement, against NHS principleswas used.
II.     Please tell me who gave this opinion to PHSO, and their status and
qualification.
III.    Were they NHS employed or from NHS background?”

 

I will address your questions in turn as they appear in your email.

 

I.             Please copy to me the written or verbal professional advice
the caseworker was referring to when this extraordinaryand offensive
statement, against NHS principleswas used.

Applicant’s request for their own personal data under FOIA are not FOI
requests and invoke the exemption at s40(1) of the FOIA.   These are
handled as subject access requests (SAR) under the Data Protection Act
1998 (DPA).  You say in your email that you are “aware of an outstanding
request for general filed information in this case at
[1]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...
“, this aspect of your request will be dealt with as part of your subject
access request and a response will be issued in due course.

II.     Please tell me who gave this opinion to PHSO, and their status and
qualification.

III.    Were they NHS employed or from NHS background?

PHSO obtained clinical advice from a registered medical practitioner who
is also a member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The adviser has
experience in inpatient, crisis resolution, community and outpatient
psychiatry.  I have withheld the name of the clinical adviser as this is
exempt under section 40(2) of the FOIA: Disclosure of this data into the
public domain would be against the legitimate expectations of the person
concerned and unfair and a breach of the first data protection principle
as set out at schedule 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998.  Accordingly,
such information is exempt under section 40(2) of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 by virtue of section 40(3)(a)(i).

 

I hope that the information I have provided is helpful.  If you are
unhappy with the way I have handled your information request, it is open
to you to request an internal review.  You can do this by sending an email
to [2][Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email].  You will need to specify what
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,

 

 

 

 

Sarah Otto

Freedom of Information / Data Protection Team

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

E: [Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email]

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

 

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

References

Visible links
1. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...
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/

Dear InformationRights,

I am still waiting for my reply to the questions:

I. Please copy to me the written or verbal ‘professional’ advice the caseworker was referring to when this extraordinary—and offensive statement, against NHS principles—was used.

II. Please tell me who (BY NAME) gave this opinion to PHSO, and their status and qualification.

III. Were they NHS employed or from NHS background?

This is a DPA request and you may respond personally to me with the answers. Please do not delay this enquiry further because it is well beyond the government target time for resolutions. You gave me no response that was helpful in the way you intended to imply. No NHS Professional can modify NHS England policy to suit an outcome masking harm and for the reasons for it. It is NHS England policy that care be given to approved standards unless explained otherwise to the patient the reasons for variation and this has to be raised with carers where it affects the patients interests, specifically as in these cases.

Practitioners were irresponsible in this (as admitted) and the patient died without the total care he was entitled to under Policy and Law.

Please do not continue to beat around the bush as if to hide further maladministration. Please respond professionally and responsibly. Please begin by looking at this mess from a customer angle, before shooting off looking for excuses to defend NHS failures.

Please also update me (under the appropriate FOI entry) on the need for your delay in dealing with https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...

Thank you

Yours sincerely,

C Rock

Informationrights@ombudsman.org.uk, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman


Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your correspondence.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

C Rock left an annotation ()

Something is not right here. I think this still needs some work if PHSO says they:

"obtained clinical advice from a registered medical practitioner who is also a member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The adviser has experience in inpatient, crisis resolution, community and outpatient psychiatry. I have withheld the name of the clinical adviser "

.... patently because if someone can actually tell a bereaved complainant the outcome would have been the same i.e. their son would probably have died anyway even if he'd had the correct care (which is what they did in my case), they should keep their heads well below the parapet.

And to what degree did PHSO 'adapt' the evidence in presentation or interpretation afterwards? Cases of PHSO harm by this sort of 'maladministration' obviously need greater publicity considering the tragic and very high profile errors PHSO continues to make and then embarrassingly HAVE TO ADMIT over and over again, where the negligence was 'excused' by a twist of words or devious connivance. I need that name to progress this, and I need to see what PHSO was actually told.

A severe revision of attitudes, culture and resolution is obviously necessary at PHSO and RCPsych and more publicity may be the only way it can be tackled. It's harm to the complainant and harm to the nation as a whole.

How about actually supporting distressed victims a bit rather that the negligence so obvious to the bereaved at the time?

phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()

Professional bodies require full disclosure of name and qualifications. Phso are breaking this code. Report them to the professional body.

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

You said "this aspect of your request will be dealt with as part of your subject access request and a response will be issued in due course." Please can you let me know when 'due course' will be, since the request has been delayed now more than 35 weeks? What is the current delay in this type of request please?

If (against a previous statement that you could provide names in certain situations), you cannot name the adviser who told you that the outcome of my son's GPs' and BSMHT's negligence would probably have been the same (i.e. my son's death) even if there had not been this negligence (viz. to follow standard procedures and identify Carers for proper operation of a Care Programme), please copy all advisers' responses in full personally to me, as I have requested on more than one occasion and via different channels. ASAP please.

As I understand the position, it is against NHS patient rights and UK Equality law to discriminate against patients in making a presumption of outcome to withhold procedures without a full and documented case at the time the patient's condition indicates a need, and where procedures are defined for such a need: as in this case.

The cost of this delay is continued failure in closure to my complaint, with the possibility that you were incorrectly advised by the RCPsych member, or whomever, which you continue to refuse to identify. I will put a similar question to RCPsych as to his/her identity, and the context and reason for the request. You have previously told me your caseworkers are 'lay' and, I have to assume, are not permitted to modify, embellish or detract from the advice they commission.

This may have repercussions of the legality of your 'resolution' which you are aware I rejected on draft, followed up with reasons why. A 'final' report was issued without my full input on this, and with some modifications in connection with 'defendants', and this demands a separate question.

It is important that this matter is cleared up soon because excessive delay worsens the outlook for others trying to make sense of this PHSO opacity and potentially procrastination in identifying NHS failure; separately with potential need for needing disciplinary action through their employers, regulators and practitioner registration bodies.

Please bear in mind that is it through my own effort that it has taken nine years to get this far and and a totally clear outcome is required as you promote in PHSO Principles for Good Complaint Handling. In that time you have shown me these principles have been secondary to 'outcomes', and that it is complainant effort which has to be greater than PHSO effort in obtaining evidence, demonstrating clarity and effecting closure with maximum learning.

Yours faithfully,

C Rock

informationrights@ombudsman.org.uk, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman


Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your correspondence.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

The delay has been excessive and I believe it was intentional. I have now received some information but can not tell if it is complete.

I have to delay closure on this item as you have delayed resolution to my complaint. There are many loose ends which you have refused to look into and explain why NHS services were let off with the negligence leading to my son's death. Some questions are as above. The nine year delay is of your own making and you have caused additional harm to an extent you obviously are unable to appreciate.

When the services involved Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health Trust and the GPs Bernays and Whitehouse feel able to give good account of their reasons to provide incomplete or false evidence relating to that negligence and against NHS complaint procedures; when the PHSO feels able to explain their patent bias and lack of diligence in excusing negligence on the basis that it "would probably have made no difference to the outcome"; and when I feel adequately fit to approach matters surrounding my son's death yet again, I will look again at this matter.

You may or may not choose to respond to the serious questions raised on your fitness to carry out mental health complaint investigations.

Yours faithfully,

C Rock

informationrights@ombudsman.org.uk, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman


Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your correspondence.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

I believe ample time has been allowed for questions to be tackled you have chosen not to do so neither publicly where it belongs or privately so that I can publicise it myself. You are denying me the answers to natural and obvious questions for which you apparently do not have the skills to recognise, and this is harmful for complainants and harmful to trust in NHS services and practices.

The outstanding question not responded-to with your package of copied records was for precise information regarding the named source of the professional wisdom passed to your lay advisers regarding Gwynne Richards' (caseworker) written statement that "The outcome would probably have been the same (i.e. my son's death) even if he had had [the correct care pathway applied]", which your response in my case partially admitted the negligence (indicative of other deceptions); and was agreed by NHS BSMHFT chief executive John Short (as at Dec 2015 and in post at this date).

You have also failed to answer private request for response though normal channels and then via face-to-face contact with R Behrens PHSO. The issue of slipshod and unprincipled research has not been addressed. The arbitrary application of care is entirely outside NHS England care provision principles and ‘Charter’. It is my understanding that NHS practitioners are not permitted to withhold available care procedure on the basis that 'they may not have any useful effect' without full discussion and documentation as to the reasons why. You have failed to provide that essential trail of documentation.

It is ALSO of severe impact that you chose to issue this offensive report at the anniversary of my son's avoidable death (mid November) and at which time I specifically advised caseworker Richards 15/12/15 that I could not comment until after Christmas. You ignored this step of courtesy and promptly issued your statement having apparently arrived at 'arrangement' with CE Short to accept the outcome. Having ignored my evidence as mere 'views' in particular with relation to the total failure in care involvement of BSMHFT Lyndon Centre staff over an extended number of years culminating in my son's death, followed a disingenuous investigation (evidenced), a guarded and dishonest submission at my son’s Inquest (admitted, de facto), and (ditto) denials of multiple failures in a legal case brought against BSMHFT.

I noted from records that you had consulted a Psychiatrist (Peters) at BSMHFT but went on to accept patently erroneous views in statements issued, but which of course caseworker Richards did not appreciate. If I had made such blatantly incorrect statements you would have just dismissed them as my “views” which, to my harm, you took very frequent exception to do so. This is not addressed in any documentation so far seen.
It is transparently apparent through this FOI platform that PHSO staff do not have the experience or skills needed even to follow or uphold your PHSO Principles, and further make no attempt to address complaints of a Quality nature.

Since you have refused to respond in any appropriate manner privately or publicly, I am asking for a full and proper review of your responses. Please in the first instance pass this for review.

C Rock

informationrights@ombudsman.org.uk, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman


Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your correspondence.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

C Rock left an annotation ()

I again informed the PHSO that I do not use 3rd party encrypted responses viz 'Egress'.
On this date the latest meaningful response was:

" As requested in your email of 15/3/18 at 18:14 we emailed an unencrypted response to you direct at 09:36 16/3/18.
A copy of the response is below in order to assist:
I write in respect of your request for a review of your request for information.
I’m sorry that we are unable to assist further with this information request. A review of your request and the way it was handled by the Freedom of Information/Data Protection Team was provided on 19th December 2017. The review apologised to you for the delay taken in providing information to you and also detailed why some information was exempt from disclosure under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 (HSCA).
If you wish to complain about the way your request has been handled it is open to you to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (www.ico.org.uk).
Yours sincerely, Freedom Of Information/Data Protection Team, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
W: www.ombudsman.org.uk"

Again a false apology is given for PHSO inability to carry out the simplest request without conceit 'unable to assist further'.

ICO referral now active.

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

You have refused to answer this request in full and there is missing information asked-for, with regard to opinions you have expressed in dismissing most of my substantive NHS complaint of negligence. I do not think you have correctly applied the rules for withholding information held under DPA.

You have been unable to substantiate the reasons for your opinions nor explain why you gave way to defendants' objections to some of the findings in the case. You have shown bias with no explanation. Other findings were not explored although patently contentious and would have indicated clearly more of the negligence which contributed to my son's death. You have not adhered to Principles you claim to follow.

I have asked the ICO to examine this enquiry.

Yours faithfully,

C Rock

informationrights@ombudsman.org.uk, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman


Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your correspondence.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

C Rock left an annotation ()

ICO referral
----
On 19/04/2018 09:10, casework @ ico.org.uk wrote:

19 April 2018 Case Reference Number FS50732798
Dear Mr Rock
Information request to Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO)

Thank you for your correspondence dated 16 March 2018 in which you complain about the time taken for PHSO to carry out an internal review that you requested on 27 November 2017.

The right to complain to the Information Commissioner is given under section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). However, a complaint may be deemed ineligible under section 50, if for example:

There is an undue delay before bringing a complaint to our attention, or;
You have not exhausted any complaints procedure which is provided by the public authority.

Before accepting complaints, the Commissioner requires complainants to allow public authorities the opportunity to respond to their appeal for a review of the handling of or decision regarding their FOI request.

Although there is no statutory time set out in the FOIA within which public authorities must complete a review, the Commissioner has issued guidance on this matter. The Commissioner considers that a reasonable time for completing an internal review is 20 working days from the date of the request for review, and in no case should the total time taken exceed 40 working days.

I have written to PHSO to provide them with a copy of your request for internal review and recommend that they issue you with an internal review decision within 10 working days from the date of receipt of our letter.

Significant or repeated unreasonable delays in dealing with internal reviews by public authorities are monitored and where appropriate further action may be taken.

This case has now been closed, however if you do not receive a response within 10 working days please contact us quoting the reference number on this letter. If you remain dissatisfied after having exhausted PHSO’s internal review process and would like us to look into the matter, please contact us quoting the reference number on this letter and providing us with a copy of the internal review decision. Please find attached a document describing how we deal with Freedom of Information complaints.

If we can be of any further assistance please contact me on the number below, quoting your case reference number. You may also find some useful information on our website at www.ico.org.uk.

Yours sincerely

A.I.
Case Officer
Information Commissioner’s Office

----

InformationRights, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

3 Attachments

Dear C Rock,

 

Internal review of your Information Request (our ref: FDN-274825)

 

I have considered your previous correspondence including your request for
a review dated 27^th November 2017 and recent correspondence from the ICO.

 

Your request for information on 26^th October 2017:

 

“I. Please copy to me the written or verbal professional advice the
caseworker was referring to when this extraordinary and offensive
statement, against NHS principles was used.
II. Please tell me who gave this opinion to PHSO, and their status and
qualification.
III. Were they NHS employed or from NHS background?”

 

 

Our response on 23^rd November 2017:

 

I.             Please copy to me the written or verbal professional advice
the caseworker was referring to when this extraordinary and offensive
statement, against NHS principles was used.

Applicant’s request for their own personal data under FOIA are not FOI
requests and invoke the exemption at s40(1) of the FOIA. These are handled
as subject access requests (SAR) under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).
You say in your email that you are “aware of an outstanding request for
general filed information in this case at
[1]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...
“, this aspect of your request will be dealt with as part of your subject
access request and a response will be issued in due course.

II. Please tell me who gave this opinion to PHSO, and their status and
qualification.

III. Were they NHS employed or from NHS background?

PHSO obtained clinical advice from a registered medical practitioner who
is also a member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The adviser has
experience in inpatient, crisis resolution, community and outpatient
psychiatry. I have withheld the name of the clinical adviser as this is
exempt under section 40(2) of the FOIA: Disclosure of this data into the
public domain would be against the legitimate expectations of the person
concerned and unfair and a breach of the first data protection principle
as set out at schedule 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998. Accordingly,
such information is exempt under section 40(2) of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 by virtue of section 40(3)(a)(i).

 

Your request for an internal review on 27^th November 2017:

 

“I am still waiting for my reply to the questions:

I. Please copy to me the written or verbal ‘professional’ advice the
caseworker was referring to when this extraordinary—and offensive
statement, against NHS principles—was used.

II. Please tell me who (BY NAME) gave this opinion to PHSO, and their
status and qualification.

III. Were they NHS employed or from NHS background?

This is a DPA request and you may respond personally to me with the
answers. Please do not delay this enquiry further because it is well
beyond the government target time for resolutions. You gave me no response
that was helpful in the way you intended to imply. No NHS Professional can
modify NHS England policy to suit an outcome masking harm and for the
reasons for it. It is NHS England policy that care be given to approved
standards unless explained otherwise to the patient the reasons for
variation and this has to be raised with carers where it affects the
patients interests, specifically as in these cases.

Practitioners were irresponsible in this (as admitted) and the patient
died without the total care he was entitled to under Policy and Law.

Please do not continue to beat around the bush as if to hide further
maladministration. Please respond professionally and responsibly. Please
begin by looking at this mess from a customer angle, before shooting off
looking for excuses to defend NHS failures.”

 

Internal Review Response

 

Timeliness of response:

 

The response to your request was within the 20 working days stipulated by
section 10(1) Freedom of Information Act. However that that you received
no internal review of our response until today is in excess of the time
the Information Commissioner considers reasonable for providing an
Internal Review.

 

Information Provided:

 

I have reconsidered your request and our response.

 

Part I of your request is in respect of your own complaint to PHSO and
therefore a request for your own personal data that is exempt under s40(1)
of the Act. Requests for a person’s own personal data are instead handled
as requests for information under the Data Protection Act 1998. We have
provided you with a separate response to your subject access request (our
ref: FDC-274553) on 19^th December 2017.

 

In respect of parts II and III of your request, the public interest in
ensuring that our clinical advisers are appropriately qualified is met by
the provision of their qualifications and experience. Clinical advisers
provide advice to us on the basis that their details will not be routinely
disclosed. While names relate to both professional and private lives,
disclosure of a name opens up the route to a potential invasion of
privacy. Our clinical advisers practise in the NHS and the disclosure of
their names could potentially result in their being approached in relation
to PHSO business at their place of work or even where they live.

 

Given that clinicians have a reasonable expectation of their names not
being placed in the public domain, I agree that it would neither be fair
or lawful to place this information in the public domain and rely on
section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act by virtue of section
40(3)(a)(i).

 

I do however note that our response did not provide you with the
qualifications of the Clinical Advisor. The qualifications should have
been provided to you in our response.  The Clinical Advisor is a
registered medical practitioner who is also a member of the Royal College
of Psychiatrists, Qualifications - MB, B.Ch, MRCPsych.

 

Conclusion

 

For the reasons set out above, I partly uphold your complaint as you were
not provided with Clinical Advisor qualifications in response to your
request. All exemptions were applied in a legally compliant manner and
maintain the exemption used. The delay in you being provided with this
internal review was unreasonable and I apologise that you did not receive
the review in a timely manner.

 

If you remain unhappy with our response, it is open to you to complain to
the Information Commissioner’s Office ([2]www.ico.org.uk).

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Andrew Martin

Freedom Of Information/Data Protection Manager

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

W: [3]www.ombudsman.org.uk

 

Follow us on

[4]fb  [5]twitter  [6]linkedin

 

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

References

Visible links
1. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...
2. http://www.ico.org.uk/
3. http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
4. http://www.facebook.com/phsombudsman
5. http://www.twitter.com/PHSOmbudsman
6. http://www.linkedin.com/company/parliame...

Dear PHSO FOI

In previous FOI request you have stated that you reveal the source of you intelligence only in resolved case. You have stated my case is 'resolved' but I have told you that it is grossly unacceptable for the following reason:

You were aware that the failure to communicate in a care dialogue was the main drive of my complaint with regard to my son's negligent treatment and death but it was totally ignored in this context, as was bringing current NHS Practice to your attention with reference to published sources.

Dismissing that complaint with insubstantial research and in an extraordinary statement you again dismissed its significance apparently against medical intelligence.

Your caseworker said:

“even if [NHS] had carried out [accepted practice in Care], “the outcome (my son's death) would probably have been the same.”

That is, you have appeared to excuse negligence on the basis of possible futile outcome. I told you this was offensive and patently against NHS charter.

I asked who, exactly, told you this. You have refused. Your reply is now:

"The Clinical Advisor is a registered medical practitioner who is also a member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Qualifications - MB, B.Ch, MRCPsych".

Clearly this has to be followed-up since your caseworkers and supervisors can apparently not be trusted to evaluate and present clear rationale - a long term failing in my experience.

You have now had nine years to clarify facts but still prevaricate. You now cause harm.

Yours sincerely,

C Rock

Informationrights@ombudsman.org.uk, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman


Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your correspondence.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

I'm not in receipt of any response on this matter and have to assume you have no comment with regard to serious corruption and collusion charges made in the manner that you changed the Report in favour of NHS Trust BSMHFT corrupt submissions of twisted evidence submitted to defend negligence resulting in the death of my son 9/11/08 leaving me to cope with huge avoidable loss and an unresolved case. I have now been under that pressure for nine years and it appears to be your intent to wear down and break complainants who have suffered severe loss and have no access to NHS resource.

I am re-comparing your Draft (Nov 2015) to the reissued version which shows considerable change based on falsehoods and assumptions which the PHSO was unable to distinguish.

I have seen sufficient comment made by Trust contributors in denial of identified negligence and demanding that the PHSO change their outcome wording to avoid the PHSO identifying serious failures. I had no such opportunity to demand change, proving the PHSO process entirely prejudiced and corruptible where sufficient weight is suggested. Both Trust and GP had their way in rebuttal, both submitted false investigation and both concealed important fact.

Specifically I noted falsehoods submitted as anecdotal notes but construed as valid fact from certain parties linked with the Defendant. I note the Trust submitted no evidence for their assumptions used to reject my complaint of harmful and negligent care provided without reference to best practice before or after the event.

I am also in receipt of very disturbing evidence that suggest that the Mental Health Trust now appears to be threatening me should I reveal specific detail. This only adds to my current mental state adding weight to the notion that self-protection as a Foundation Trust and not Mental Health is really core business, and which I found out to my cost in 2004 to 2008 after asking for their help then complaining that my son was still suffering from the Trusts previous threatening engagements. The PHSO declined to investigate relevant mental threats made to my son by abusive Trust operators. That was significant to the outcome but you ruled it out as irrelevant in your lay view. Your investigation was not complete and I rejected it for this and abusive remarks the PHSO made about the relevance of proper care and purpose of NICE best practice.

NOTED: You have chosen not to respond or permit fair and just closure to this complaint as was expected by your key function. This enquiry failed to establish the source of your irrational medical advice.

Yours faithfully,

C Rock

informationrights@ombudsman.org.uk, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman


Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your correspondence.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org