Incompetent and Inadequate Complaint Handling
Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,
What management practices and procedures are in place to prevent
a poor anaysis of the issues,
mismanage.ment and a complete lack of professionalism
in Health Service investigations ?
I am pinpointing issues such as
1 Ignoring the actual Complaint
Simplifying the specific issues
and diluting them into a generalised 'whinge'.
The Investigator assuming that the actual issues had been already answered by Trust.
Details being passed over and the core Complaint not being addressed.
Prejudging the issues.
2. Secrecy
The PHSO refusing to indentify their Medical Adviser
or release any details of their opinion.
The person at the PHSO who deals with Data Protection
(retaining information)
also responding to Freedom of Information requests
(transmitting information).
This paradox has might clearly confuse them
and they may allow the maximum permitted time
to elapse before refusing to answer an FOI request.
3. Ignoring independently verifiable facts
Vast swathes of evidence can be ignored in the investigation.
Not taking into account the evidence
of independent witnesses or subject matter experts
and refusing to contact them
4. Refusing to correct the Draft Report,
even when it is inconsistent, incoherent
and contains palpable errors
Totally ignoring any feedback on the Draft.
The Investigator denying any possibility of a dialogue.
The consultation period being non-existent.
Making sarcastic references to the Complainant's disability,
and
despite any objections, retaining them in the Final Report.
The Final Report being simply a carbon copy of the Draft.
5. Bias
The Report is a simple "cut and paste"
of the Trust's original response to the Complaint
even when this was 18 months ago
and has since been withdrawn.
No member of staff from the Trust being even named in the Report.
The relationship between the patient and the Trust not being examined.
The patient being judged, not the issues of the Complaint
The Report denying that any issues exist.
The Investigator not justifying any of their findings.
6 Refusal to communicate
During this process, the PHSO consistently
refusing to enter any constructive dialogue.
e.g. mentionimg terms like "evidence"
while concealing whatever it is they're relying upon.
Refusing to answer all requests for clarification.
7. Mismanaging expectations
Prior to the beginning of the investigation,
a Complaint can successfully pass through several stages of analysis
and verification.
I understand that these are designed to filter out
any groundless or ambiguous Complaints.
Therefore, one can anticipate that the Complaint
that actually gets to the investigation stage
had a good chance of being upheld.
However, many Complaints are not even partially upheld.
even when the Trust has admitted breaking its own procedural
and r clinical rules,
or even the NHS Constitution !
When the issues raised in the Complaint
such as failings in the key areas of
Safety
Effectiveness
Responsiveness
and Leadership
have been criticised by the Care Quality Commission,
the PHSO still manages to ignore them !
So, in conclusion,
what safeguards are in place to prevent any of the above ?
Yours faithfully,
Kim Rathbone
Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your correspondence.
All email communications with PHSO pass through the Government Secure Intranet, and may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality mark initiative for information security products and services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk
E. Colville left an annotation ()
Have PHSO themselves become masters of administrative gamesmanship and potential maladministrators?
In 1975 Geoffrey Marshall, one of Britain's leading constitutional theorists, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituari... facetiously suggested 15 maxims for the potential maladministrator which give the flavour of administrative gamesmanship:
-Don't volunteer written explanations of decisions
-Don't allow access to technical, legal or other advice received
-Frequently change policies randomly
-Arrange for high position turnover so that different people deal with the same case
-Delay acting on favourable jursiditctional points until after expiry of possible client remedies
-Ensure overlapping responsibilities with easy coordination
-Don't record (but misfile) correspondence
-Don't volunteer assistance
-Leave uncertainty about conclusions reached and next steps
-Draw out consultation
-Refer to being overworked
-Jumble communications
-Keep files moving
-Open multiple files without cross-referencing
-Arrange for occasional erroneous release of libellous internal memoranda
[Name Removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()
Wow..good old Geoffrey.
Must have had his crystal ball attuned to the PHSO.
Thank you E Colville.
phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()
He would turn in his grave to see what it has become. Just goes to show that you can take an honest idea and create a dishonest institution from it.
Colin Hammonds left an annotation ()
....i think the PHSO are doing a wonderful and fantastic job, they are doing just what they are set up to do....what's more they are doing it all completely openly...they are without doubt an institution saving the establishment millions in terms of compensation and restructuring various services found to be at fault.....they have saved money in terms of cost by simply throwing the complaint in the bin or by simply being misleading, equivocal or just wearing complainants down..all of this has been achieved with the minimum of cost relative to the amount of complaints received......the PHSO are being so effective that people are now avoiding the PHSO completely and dropping their complaints......no complaints = nothing wrong.....!
Dear Ms/Mr Rathbone
Your information request (FDN-238970)
I am writing further to your email of 3 November 2015, in which you asked
a number of questions.
PHSO’s policies can be found online as part of our Publication Scheme at
the following address:
[1]www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/being-open-and-transparent/our-publication-scheme/our-policies-and-procedures
In addition, I have attached PHSO’s Quality and Service Standards which
set out the standards we expect and shows how they link to our
[2]Strategic Plan. You can also find information about the [3]Ombudsman’s
Principles on our website.
The legislation which governs the Ombudsman’s work, the Health Service
Commissioners Act 1993 and the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, is
also available online at: [4]www.legislation.gov.uk.
If you are unhappy with the service you have received from PHSO, it is
open to you to complain about that service. Further information about how
to do this is available [5]here.
If you are unhappy with the way an information request has been handled,
it is open to you to request an Internal Review. Beyond that, you can
complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office ([6]www.ico.org.uk).
I hope that this information is helpful.
Yours sincerely
Aimee Gasston
Freedom of Information / Data Protection Officer
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
W: [7]www.ombudsman.org.uk
Please email the FOI/DP team at: [8][email address]
Follow us on
[9]fb [10]twitter [11]linkedin
From: Kim Rathbone [mailto:[FOI #300499 email]]
Sent: 03 November 2015 14:06
To: foiofficer
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Incompetent and Inadequate
Complaint Handling
Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,
What management practices and procedures are in place to prevent
a poor anaysis of the issues,
mismanage.ment and a complete lack of professionalism
in Health Service investigations ?
I am pinpointing issues such as
1 Ignoring the actual Complaint
Simplifying the specific issues
and diluting them into a generalised 'whinge'.
The Investigator assuming that the actual issues had been already answered
by Trust.
Details being passed over and the core Complaint not being addressed.
Prejudging the issues.
2. Secrecy
The PHSO refusing to indentify their Medical Adviser
or release any details of their opinion.
The person at the PHSO who deals with Data Protection
(retaining information)
also responding to Freedom of Information requests
(transmitting information).
This paradox has might clearly confuse them
and they may allow the maximum permitted time
to elapse before refusing to answer an FOI request.
3. Ignoring independently verifiable facts
Vast swathes of evidence can be ignored in the investigation.
Not taking into account the evidence
of independent witnesses or subject matter experts
and refusing to contact them
4. Refusing to correct the Draft Report,
even when it is inconsistent, incoherent
and contains palpable errors
Totally ignoring any feedback on the Draft.
The Investigator denying any possibility of a dialogue.
The consultation period being non-existent.
Making sarcastic references to the Complainant's disability,
and
despite any objections, retaining them in the Final Report.
The Final Report being simply a carbon copy of the Draft.
5. Bias
The Report is a simple "cut and paste"
of the Trust's original response to the Complaint
even when this was 18 months ago
and has since been withdrawn.
No member of staff from the Trust being even named in the Report.
The relationship between the patient and the Trust not being examined.
The patient being judged, not the issues of the Complaint
The Report denying that any issues exist.
The Investigator not justifying any of their findings.
6 Refusal to communicate
During this process, the PHSO consistently
refusing to enter any constructive dialogue.
e.g. mentionimg terms like "evidence"
while concealing whatever it is they're relying upon.
Refusing to answer all requests for clarification.
7. Mismanaging expectations
Prior to the beginning of the investigation,
a Complaint can successfully pass through several stages of analysis
and verification.
I understand that these are designed to filter out
any groundless or ambiguous Complaints.
Therefore, one can anticipate that the Complaint
that actually gets to the investigation stage
had a good chance of being upheld.
However, many Complaints are not even partially upheld.
even when the Trust has admitted breaking its own procedural
and r clinical rules,
or even the NHS Constitution !
When the issues raised in the Complaint
such as failings in the key areas of
Safety
Effectiveness
Responsiveness
and Leadership
have been criticised by the Care Quality Commission,
the PHSO still manages to ignore them !
So, in conclusion,
what safeguards are in place to prevent any of the above ?
Yours faithfully,
Kim Rathbone
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[12][FOI #300499 email]
Is [13][Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email] the wrong address for Freedom of
Information requests to Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman? If so,
please contact us using this form:
[14]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[15]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now
phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()
Looks like you have had the complete package from PHSO there Kim. Maybe check out phsothefacts.com