Ombudsman's signature

The request was partially successful.

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

From Investigation Manual 1.0:

"Investigators should keep their Managers and Directors sighted on any cases that are likely to require the Ombudsman’s signature." p.26

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/2...

How many times in each of the past six months have investigators kept Managers and Directors "sighted" of cases likely to require the Ombudsman's signature?

Yours faithfully,

J Roberts

foiofficer, 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.

show quoted sections

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

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

3 Attachments

Dear J Roberts

 

Your information request: FDN 210264

 

I write in response to your information requested dated 15 December 2014
in which you asked:

 

‘How many times in each of the past six months have investigators kept
Managers and Directors "sighted" of cases likely to require the
Ombudsman's signature?’

 

Response

 

Managers are involved in all cases allocated to their team and therefore
are ‘kept sighted’ of any cases likely to require the Ombudsman’s
signature. I am unable to provide you with the exact number of cases that
were ‘likely to need the Ombudsman’s signature’ as we do not record this
information centrally. In order to provide information requested it would
be necessary to manually review the individual case files for all open
cases and cases that were closed in the past six months.

 

To do this, we have estimated it would exceed the ‘appropriate limit’ set
out in the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit
and Fees) Regulations 2004. Section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FOIA) provides an exemption from the obligation to comply with a
request for information where the cost of compliance is estimated to
exceed the appropriate limit (£450 or 18 hours at £25/hour).

 

I hope that the explanation provided is helpful. If you are dissatisfied
with the outcome of your request, you can ask for a review by writing to
the Review Team using the address on this letter or by emailing:
[email address]

 

Beyond that, if you remain dissatisfied, you can ask the Information
Commissioner to look into your concerns. He can be contacted at:

The Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

 

Website: www.ico.org.uk

 

Helpline telephone number: 0303 123 1113

 

Yours sincerely

 

Rebecca Gadsdon

FOI/DP Officer

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

T: 0300 061 1516

E: [1][email address]

W: [2]www.ombudsman.org.uk

 

Follow us on

[3]fb  [4]twitter  [5]linkedin

 

show quoted sections

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

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
3. http://www.facebook.com/phsombudsman
4. http://www.twitter.com/PHSOmbudsman
5. http://www.linkedin.com/company/parliame...

[Name Removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

You could modify your request to ask how many times cases have been referred to the legal advisor, since the review team is within that department.

That step seems to be missed - with the Review team making decisions, without the benefit of legal advice.

For instance,the Human Rights Act states

Article 2 Right to life
The right to life contained in Article 2:

imposes an obligation on the State to protect the right to life;

requires an effective and proper investigation into all deaths caused by the State.

https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/...

Yet cases involving deaths - such as mine - Do not seem to be automatically referred to the Legal advisor for a ruling whether or not an 'effective and proper investigation into a negligent NHS death - has been undertaken.

If half the medical files ( which logically should exist) have been 'misplaced' (....possibly through the shredder ) then an effective and proper investigation cannot have taken place. So the complainant's maladministration case must be upheld.

Instead, the PHSO seems to illogically blame the complainant for the 'withheld' /disappearing evidence and completely write off Article 2. Stating that the complainant has not provided the missing - and possibly crucial - evidence.

The question is why.

::::

So you could refine your request - to meet the cost limits - by asking how many referrals have been made to senior officers ( or a particular senior officer ) for your particular type of case....Say in a year, or six months.

And how many of that type of case did the PHSO receive in that time.

Then it might be possible to see the percentage of cases which were processed by caseworkers - without the knowledge of professional senior officers.

The only problem might be that the PHSO doesn't have a clue as to how many cases of a type were received,
as it doesn't seem to have much of a grip on what it is processing.

Even to spot any long term trends or clusters of similar cases.

J Roberts left an annotation ()

JT Oakley,

Thanks for your comment. I'll submit a modified request.

I understand from your comment the terribly weak position of a complainant. A complaint cannot be upheld without evidence and a hospital has nothing to lose by not providing the evidence.

In fact, an employment tribunal has ruled that a solicitor who asked a doctor to suppress details about a patient's death was wrongly and unfairly dismissed. She was awarded £100,000 in compensation:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-stoke...

Dear foiofficer,

I wish to modify my request to keep it within cost limits.

How many times in each of the past six months has the Legal Advisor or someone of at least their rank been informed that a case involving death may require the Ombudsman's signature?

Yours sincerely,

J Roberts

foiofficer, 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.

show quoted sections

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

[Name Removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

It's not certain that the hospital authority approved of the lawyer's behaviour in the case you quote J Roberts.

It seemed to boil down to the contract between the two parties and the way in which the lawyer was sacked.

::::

In general there are two ways of stopping a NHS complainant via the non- production of evidence.

The first is at ward level, where a negligent nurse or doctor shreds, or alters the notes. If there is any sort of legal comeback on the horizon , it's not in the health trust/boards interests to look too closely for the vanished notes.
So patients continue to be abused.

The second is formal withholding the notes , done by external private companies, or in-house lawyers, on grounds similar to those quoted in the case you have posted.

Stated to be 'To stop the complainants being 'upset' .....but really just to stop the complainants.
Which external companies have to do - for a continuation of their contracts.

The PHSO supports both strategies by stating that it can only consider the evidence provided. And even though it has the legal power to do so...doesn't look any further.

Missing evidence - which logically should exist - and should of been provided - on request - to the complainant, conveniently doesn't count against health trust/board's cases. So the complainant's case is not upheld.

Negligence continues - and patients remain at risk.

And that's how, amongst other game-playing, that you eventually get NHS scandals like mid-Staffs and Morecambe Bay.

J Roberts left an annotation ()

A lawyer receives £100,000 compensation after being sacked for telling a doctor to suppress evidence about a patients death, yet most PHSO awards of compensation in cases involving a death are no greater than £500!*

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

* based on small sample of 10 recent cases

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

3 Attachments

Dear J Roberts

 

Your information request: FDN 211310

 

I write in response to your information request dated 6 January 2015.

 

I am unable to provide you with the number of times in the past six months
‘the Legal Advisor (or someone of at least their rank) has been informed
that a case involving death may require the Ombudsman's signature’. As we
have previously explained, we do not hold a central record relating to
cases that ‘may require the Ombudsman’s signature’.

 

It is possible that there are avoidable death cases that the Legal Adviser
will have advised on and which might have been signed off by the
Ombudsman. However in order to establish how many of those cases there
were, it would be necessary to manually review the individual case files
for all open cases and cases that were closed in the past six months (over
4,100 cases). The same would apply to cases ‘sighted by managers or
directors’ as explained in our previous response.

 

To do this, we have estimated it would exceed the ‘appropriate limit’ set
out in the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit
and Fees) Regulations 2004. Section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FOIA) provides an exemption from the obligation to comply with a
request for information where the cost of compliance is estimated to
exceed the appropriate limit (£450 or 18 hours at £25/hour).

 

Though I appreciate that you have attempted to narrow the scope of your
request, given the limitations of being able to search for the information
you are interested in we are unlikely to be able to respond to any similar
attempts to bring the request within the limits of the cost exemption.

 

I hope that the explanation provided is helpful. If you are dissatisfied
with the outcome of your request, you can ask for a review by emailing us
at [1][email address]

 

Beyond that, if you remain dissatisfied, you can ask the Information
Commissioner to look into your concerns. He can be contacted at:

 

The Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5A

 

Website: www.ico.org.uk

 

Helpline telephone number: 0303 123 1113

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Rebecca Gadsdon

FOI/DP Officer

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

T: 0300 061 1516

E: [2][email address]

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

 

Follow us on

[4]fb  [5]twitter  [6]linkedin

 

show quoted sections

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

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[email address]
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 foiofficer,

I am disappointed that you cannot provide the information I have requested, and I wish further to refine my request.

"Investigators should keep their Managers and Directors sighted on any cases that are likely to require the Ombudsman’s signature."

Please provide the following:

1. The current maximum number of i. Managers and ii. Directors who could be kept informed by Investigators of cases likely to require the Ombudsman's signature.
2. The current number of unclosed cases that i. Managers and ii. Directors have been informed by Investigators are likely to require the Ombudsman's signature.
3. The procedures that i. Managers and ii. Directors must adhere to when informed by an Investigator that a case is likely to require the signature of the Ombudsman.
4. Any guidance available to assist Investigators to determine whether a i. Manager or ii. Director should be informed of a case likely to require the Ombudsman's signature.

Yours sincerely,
J Roberts

foiofficer, 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.

show quoted sections

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

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

6 Attachments

Dear J Roberts

 

Your information request: FDN 212474

I write in response to your information request dated 18 January 2015 in
which you requested:

 

‘Please provide the following:

 

1. The current maximum number of i. Managers and ii. Directors who could
be kept informed by Investigators of cases likely to require the
Ombudsman's signature.

2. The current number of unclosed cases that i. Managers and ii. Directors
have been informed by Investigators are likely to require the Ombudsman's
signature.

3. The procedures that i. Managers and ii. Directors must adhere to when
informed by an Investigator that a case is likely to require the signature
of the Ombudsman.

4. Any guidance available to assist Investigators to determine whether a
i. Manager or ii. Director should be informed of a case likely to require
the Ombudsman's signature’.

 

Response

There are approximately 10 Directors/Assistant Directors and 27 Managers/
Assistant Managers who could be informed of cases that may need the
Ombudsman’s signature. However this is dependent on the nature of the
case.

 

I have attached all guidance we hold relating to cases that require the
Ombudsman’s signature:

o Enquiry & Assessment Manual (page 22)
o Investigation Manual (page 32-33)
o Complex Investigation Guide (page 30)

 

As we have previously explained in our responses to you (FDN211310 and FDN
210264), in order to establish how many times Managers or Directors have
been informed a case is  likely to need Ombudsman’s signature, it would be
necessary to manually review individual case files as we do not hold a
central record in relation to this. There are currently over 2500 open
investigations.

 

To do this, we have estimated it would exceed the ‘appropriate limit’ set
out in the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit
and Fees) Regulations 2004. Section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FOIA) provides an exemption from the obligation to comply with a
request for information where the cost of compliance is estimated to
exceed the appropriate limit (£450 or 18 hours at £25/hour).

 

Although you have again attempted to narrow the scope of your request,
given the limitations of being able to search for the information you are
interested in we are unlikely to be able to respond to any similar
attempts to bring the request within the limits of the cost exemption.

 

I hope that the explanation provided is helpful. If you are dissatisfied
with the outcome of your request, you can ask for a review by emailing us
at [email address]

 

Beyond that, if you remain dissatisfied, you can ask the Information
Commissioner to look into your concerns. He can be contacted at:

 

The Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5A

 

Website: www.ico.org.uk

 

Helpline telephone number: 0303 123 1113

 

Kind regards

 

Rebecca Gadsdon

FOI/DP Officer

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

T: 0300 061 1516

E: [1][email address]

W: [2]www.ombudsman.org.uk

 

Follow us on

[3]fb  [4]twitter  [5]linkedin

 

show quoted sections

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

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
3. http://www.facebook.com/phsombudsman
4. http://www.twitter.com/PHSOmbudsman
5. http://www.linkedin.com/company/parliame...