Revisions in lighht of Donaldson and Allan reports re PHSO failures

C Rock 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.

The request was refused by Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

The PHSO has for many years closed its ears to complainants raising problems apparently now admitted (after Donaldson and Allan Reports), to the detriment of PHSO purpose and government service provision, and added outcome of mental harm to complainant (NB evidence rejected).

I have previously advised PHSO that my historic complaint is now in 10 years of non-resolution due to same defects. These largely due to lack of PHSO acuity, insight, bias, and a distinct contempt of complainants experience. PHSO Actions fly against European and UK Law (Discrimination, Equality, Rights; NB again, evidence mocked, and rejected) .

A damaging lack of insight was demonstrated by the PHSO R Behrens so typically, in a personal communication purportedly to review and resolve a case. Many complaints of procedural faults as illustrated in the Donaldson and Allan reports were made, but again dismissed unresolved with no visible review or cogent analysis, despite assurances to the contrary. Rebuttals were abusive in reiterated defence and in context of the harm done and, possibly, intended.

My Questions:

(1) Has the PHSO published, drafted or worked on (recorded) plans to review complaints where resolution was without insight of massive procedural and prejudicial failures shown those reports? If so please provide or indicate here.

It has been published elsewhere that PHSO has declined to take up specific organisational recommendations from the Donaldson and Allan reports:

(2) Please can you publish these declined instances and (if FOI resource permits) with the reasons and/OR alternative proposals to incorporate .

Yours faithfully,
C Rock

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

Thank you for contacting the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s (PHSO) Freedom of Information and Data Protection Team. This is to confirm we have received your request.
If you have made a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or Environment Information Regulations 2004, we will respond to your request within 20 working days in accordance with the statutory time frames set out in both Acts.
If you have made a request for personal information held by the PHSO, your request will be processed as a Subject Access Request under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 2018 and will be responded to within one calendar month in accordance with the statutory time frame set out in the Act.
We may contact you before this time if we require further clarification or if we need to extend the time required to complete your request.
For Subject Access Requests, we will send any personal information via secure email, unless you instruct us differently. To access the information on the email we send, you will need to sign up to our secure email service. Details can be found on our website using the link below:
www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/being-open...
If you require us to post your personal information to you instead you will need to inform us of this and confirm your current address as soon as possible.

InformationRights, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

3 Attachments

Dear C Rock

 

RE: Your information request: R0000775

                            

I write in response to your email to the Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman (PHSO) dated 6 July 2019 requesting information under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000.

 

Request:

 

(1)  Has the PHSO published, drafted or worked on (recorded) plans to
review complaints where  resolution was without insight of massive
procedural and prejudicial failures shown those reports? If so please
provide or indicate here.

 

It has been published elsewhere that PHSO has declined to take up specific
organisational recommendations from the Donaldson and Allan reports:

 

(2)  Please can you publish these declined instances and (if FOI resource
permits) with the reasons and/OR alternative proposals to incorporate .

 

Response

 

1.This element of your request is not clear. However, we have interpreted
this to mean do we consider cases resolved, without considering all
elements of failings or injustice that have been raised, or discovered.

 

We do not hold any information specific to your request in terms of
published, drafted, or worked on (recorded) plans to review complaints as
per the above interpretation.

 

To provide advice and assistance in line with Section 16 of the Act, the
resolution section of the Service Model Main Guidance explains when we may
consider a case resolved. The investigation guidance also provides how we
make decisions on the action to take when we find failings have led to
unremedied injustice.

 

I have provided a link to this document below:

 

[1]https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/sites/defau...

 

2.Our response to the Clinical Advice Review is published on our website
and this includes what we were/were not accepting. This information is
exempt under Section 21 of the Act as it is reasonably accessible via
other means.

 

I have provided a link to the relevant section of our website below:

 

[2]https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/clinical-ad...

 

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
[3][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 ([4]www.ico.org.uk).

 

Yours sincerely

 

Freedom of Information/Data Protection Team

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

W: [5]www.ombudsman.org.uk

 

Follow us on

[6]fb  [7]twitter  [8]linkedin

 

 

References

Visible links
1. https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/sites/defau...
2. https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/clinical-ad...
3. mailto:[Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email]
4. http://www.ico.org.uk/
5. http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
6. http://www.facebook.com/phsombudsman
7. http://www.twitter.com/PHSOmbudsman
8. http://www.linkedin.com/company/parliame...

Dear InformationRights,

I'm sorry your interpretation was not as you assumed. The information given did not answer or cover my question about the existence of assessments or proposals for reform of failings.

Hoverer I noted that the document still referred to restorative consideration where the complainant (victim; deceased etc) has suffered / still suffers as follows, and topic was subject of R Behrens personal accusations placed on the NHS (and where such failures can only be referred to PHSO). As follows:

[in harm caused]

"Emotional - Distress lasting over 12 months. Significant distress, lasting over three months, or which is ongoing. Less serious trauma cases.

"Material - This would include financial or other significant hardship or other adverse impact on quality of life, lasting in excess of six months. Including delays in handling overseas immigration or other applications in excess of two years; exceptionally poor complaint handling extending over several years, or involving repeated dishonest or disingenuous responses which deliberately seek to evade responsibility.

"Physiological -
Minor pain (P1) lasting for three months to a year;
severe pain (P2) for one to three months. Loss of opportunity for better clinical outcome in cases of moderately serious illness where there is no reduction in life expectancy.

"Bereavement -
B2 cases where there was a small but tangible possibility that the person affected would have survived, which was compromised.
B3 cases where the affected person’s suffering was prolonged or where the failures in care were particularly serious, causing significant distress to the person’s family.
B4 cases where poor communication had a significant impact on the surviving family’s last memories of the person affected.
B5 cases where the complaint handling was particularly poor, impacting on the family’s ability to find closure."

All these factors can be relevant to victims approaching the PHSO but no consideration is currently given. possibly often worsening the harm committed thus denying closure in common terms (and in fact it appears the PHSO goes beyond legality to cause harm, in my experience). I have never known the PHSO to question or assess harm and have long awaited PHSO interest in harm caused, concern or questioning.

Despite being made aware of "massive procedural and prejudicial failures shown those reports". I note that the PHSO ignores aspects of failure and harm and this may well have been in mind for the reforms needed. Now being aware of these failings, I questioned plans (e.g. failings as above) to be tackled for implementation and benefit of victims.

So can you kindly confirm a relevant answer such as "No plans exist or which can be released to me under FOI" .

Please confirm or give reasons for no-release.

Thank you
C Rock

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

Thank you for contacting the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s (PHSO) Freedom of Information and Data Protection Team. This is to confirm we have received your request.
If you have made a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or Environment Information Regulations 2004, we will respond to your request within 20 working days in accordance with the statutory time frames set out in both Acts.
If you have made a request for personal information held by the PHSO, your request will be processed as a Subject Access Request under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 2018 and will be responded to within one calendar month in accordance with the statutory time frame set out in the Act.
We may contact you before this time if we require further clarification or if we need to extend the time required to complete your request.
For Subject Access Requests, we will send any personal information via secure email, unless you instruct us differently. To access the information on the email we send, you will need to sign up to our secure email service. Details can be found on our website using the link below:
www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/being-open...
If you require us to post your personal information to you instead you will need to inform us of this and confirm your current address as soon as possible.

C Rock left an annotation ()

Currently the PHSO is denying complainants any consideration of harm done during PHSO process, and writing off harm done in original failure.

It appears illegal to me and I question PHSO plans to deal internally to address lack of PHSO competence and lack of closure for complainant through these omissions.

Mind you these are the same people who say they follow (self) published guidelines, and in the next breath take a view on application of (expert) medical best practice saying that NICE Guidelines for best practice "are only guidelines so we reject your expectations [of them being applied]".

No wonder nobody can take PHSO seriously, especially when you place the failures right in front of them and they look away or just put down the phone. "Don't want to hear" syndrome classifies PHSO Customer Services. It's very sad or very criminal, but evidence supports my 'rant'. Perhaps I should justify and publish anyway?

C Rock left an annotation ()

From the PHSO:
"Recommendations -- Sir Liam was clear that achieving the changes necessary to address the findings of the Clinical Advice Review would be a developmental process, requiring strong leadership, cultural change and the embedding of new behaviours. To enable this, he recommended creating two new senior posts in our structure:

- a Medical Director to lead and oversee thedevelopment of the new system of working;
-a Director for Patients and Families to develop amore complainant centred service..

"The Review Team agreed that these changes would take time and needed to be underpinned by new cultural norms and behaviours. The Review noted that decisions about the structure of our senior team are for the Ombudsman and Chief Executive..."

How much time should people wait for the justice they were promised but harmed over years without a blink of recognition from abysmal "cultural norms and behaviours" let alone three PHSOs incumbent who gave not one iota to enhance their understanding of their collateral damage to the NHS and patients. Blame someone else and heads down for more harm is the message I am getting. How many deaths and injuries are required to get this collusive and incestuous service on track to help citizens of UK PLC?

Other opinions welcome, of course.

InformationRights, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

3 Attachments

Dear C Rock

 

Thank you for your reply advising our interpretation of Question 1 of your
request was incorrect.

 

It remains unclear precisely what information you are requesting with
regards to 'the existence of assessments or proposals for reform of
failings'.

 

If you are asking for what plans we have to progress activity linked to
the recommendations that came from our clinical advice review, I would
direct you to the response document we have already published and that
sets out both what changes we plan to make and when we expect to deliver
them in light of the recommendations made in Sir Liam and Sir Alex’s
reports. You can view the response document via the link below:

 

[1]https://ombudsman.org.uk/sites/default/f...

 

The detailed financial remedy guidance that we have sent you makes clear
that careful, evidence based assessments are made when we identify
failings that specifically take account of issues such as harm and
failure. Section 7 of our published Service Model, which sets out how our
staff assess, consider and progress cases, also makes clear that when
investigating our caseworkers (para 7.2) ‘consider and weigh up all the
evidence that is available, ensuring that our provisional views are based
on all the relevant evidence, is consistent with the facts and ignores
irrelevant information’. The rest of this section of the Service Model
also explicitly refers to considerations of (7.5) maladministration and
service failure as well as considerations around (7.37) ‘distress,
frustration, pain and inconvenience’. You can view the Service Model main
guidance document via the link below:

 

[2]https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/sites/defau...

 

We do not hold any other information relating to ‘the existence of
assessments or proposals for reform of failings’.

 

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
[3][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 ([4]www.ico.org.uk).

 

Yours sincerely

 

Freedom of Information/Data Protection Team

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

W: [5]www.ombudsman.org.uk

 

Follow us on

[6]fb  [7]twitter  [8]linkedin

 

show quoted sections

Dear InformationRights,

I wish to close this enquiry as going nowhere, as follows:

Mark well that your response is inadequate in several areas not addressed and I name some as follows:

"...careful, evidence based assessments are made when we identify failings that specifically take account of issues such as harm and failure. Section 7 of our published Service Model, which sets out how our staff assess, consider and progress cases, ..."

This is still entirely subjective in PHSO lay interpretation, even where applied.

"...also makes clear that when investigating our caseworkers (para 7.2) ‘consider and weigh up all the evidence that is available, ensuring that our provisional views are based on all the relevant evidence, is consistent with the facts and ignores irrelevant information’.

This is entirely subjective in PHSO interpretation and proven to be incorrect in practice.

" ... the Service Model also explicitly refers to considerations of (7.5) maladministration and service failure as well as considerations around (7.37) ‘distress, frustration, pain and inconvenience’. "

'Explicit reference' but nevertheless ignored in practice. This is shameful and causes further harm to victims.

I saw no expression of need or intent to follow "Service Model guidance " and that is why I questioned this topic from your recorded information.

There appears no 'guidance ' which requires PHSO workers to follow this, and it has been evidenced that in practice they do not follow nor have historically. Hence my question.

I find your responses harmful, distressful frustrating, painful and destructive through not being followed by PHSO themselves. There appears to be no procedure or "Service Model" to deal with that and the result is more harm.

In a previous FOI you stated that PHSO workers have no special training, or training relevant to casework subject, and this shows in the offensive and ambivalent manner they can play-down and dismiss relevant evidence yet make no checks on 'favourable' but deceitful statements made by 'defendants' e.g. in NHS failure to follow their 'Guidance'.

And all this the PHSO claims, by refusal point-blank to accept complaints about why the 'Guidance' is not followed.

I do not feel that you are willing to inform or clarify whilst PHSO patenty continues to break the law and abuse complainats of their rights and expectation of transparency. I regret that this is the case but apologise for placing it before FOI essentially powerless to act in the interests of victims.

Since the PHSO has stated (elsewhere) that there is no need for negligent services to follow their Guidance (and that it would be beyond expectation (quote from R Behrens authorised material)), I will assume that the same applies at PHSO.

I find this utterly corrupt.

My response is delayed because as you are aware I await resolution of my case in a state of sickness and trauma caused by PHSO and the offensive and potentially criminal way you and the PHSO has personally sought to collude with NHS and undermine my evidence and experience with not one question on the harm and damage the PHSO continues to knowingly cause.

Thank you
C Rock

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

Thank you for contacting the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s (PHSO) Freedom of Information and Data Protection Team. This is to confirm we have received your request.
If you have made a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or Environment Information Regulations 2004, we will respond to your request within 20 working days in accordance with the statutory time frames set out in both Acts.
If you have made a request for personal information held by the PHSO, your request will be processed as a Subject Access Request under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 2018 and will be responded to within one calendar month in accordance with the statutory time frame set out in the Act.
We may contact you before this time if we require further clarification or if we need to extend the time required to complete your request.
For Subject Access Requests, we will send any personal information via secure email, unless you instruct us differently. To access the information on the email we send, you will need to sign up to our secure email service. Details can be found on our website using the link below:
www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/being-open...
If you require us to post your personal information to you instead you will need to inform us of this and confirm your current address as soon as possible.

C Rock left an annotation ()

Request was refused without a reason valid under the law in my opinion.