Stats Query: new cases and number of individuals
Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,
Figures for “new case we handled” from page 15 of your annual report:
2014/15 - 29,000
2013/14 – 27,273
Figures for the number of individuals making complaints to the PHSO:
2014/15 – 23,899
2013/14 – 24,659
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/2...
Difference between figures:
2014/15 – 5,101 (29,000-23,899)
20/13/14 – 2,614 (27,273-24,659)
Please provide a copy of all information held that explains the difference in these figures and accounts for the 95% increase. On the face of it, it would appear that some individuals had multiple cases totaling 5,101 in 2014/15 and 2,614 in 2013/14.
For each of the two years concerned, please provide details of the number of individuals who had multiple cases. Please specify the number of individuals who had 2,3,4,5 cases etc.
Yours faithfully,
J Roberts
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
Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,
Clarification:
“Please provide a copy of all information held that explains the difference in these figures”
This refers to the difference between:
1. 29,000 and 23,899
2. 27,273 and 24,659
“and accounts for the 95% increase.”
This refers to the increase in the number of cases that exceed the number of individuals making complaints in each of the two years - from 2,614 to 5,101.
I forgot to include something.
Please provide the number of individuals that relate to each of the following figures contained in your latest annual report:
1. 6,815 cases assessed;
2. 4,280 cases passed to you investigations teams ;
3. 1,521 cases fully or partially upheld;
4. 2,279 cases not upheld; and
5. 359 other.
Please provide the figure for partially upheld complaints from the total figure of 1,521.
Yours faithfully,
J Roberts
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
Dear J Roberts
Your information request (FDN-240384)
I am writing further to your emails of 15 and 16 November 2015.
First of all, I would like to explain that the terms ‘enquiry’ and ‘case’
do not refer to the same thing and therefore the figures cannot be
cross-compared. While our annual report refers to ‘cases’, ‘enquiries’
were the subject of your previous information request to us (reference
FDN-228941) and are the main focus of your current request.
An ‘enquiry’ relates an individual contacting us, in relation to
anything. A ‘case’ describes a complaint (or multiple complaints about
different organisations which all relate to the same issue or episode)
where a preliminary assessment has been completed. An explanation of the
difference between cases and complaints is provided on page 11 of our
annual report.
You have asked us to tell you how many complaints were partly upheld out
of the total figure of 1,521 fully or partly upheld as provided in our
annual report. 1,105 investigations were partly upheld.
The attached table provides you with the remaining data you have
requested. Please note that these figures are not 100% accurate as
someone could contact us and not provide their identity and then later
come back to us and give their details. For consistency, however, the
figures assume that all individuals who withhold their identity are
unique.
I hope that this information is helpful.
Yours sincerely
Aimee Gasston
Freedom of Information / Data Protection Officer
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
W: [1]www.ombudsman.org.uk
Please email the FOI/DP team at: [2][email address]
From: J Roberts [mailto:[FOI #302561 email]]
Sent: 15 November 2015 15:24
To: foiofficer
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Stats Query: new cases and
number of individuals
Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,
Figures for new case we handled from page 15 of your annual report:
2014/15 - 29,000
2013/14 27,273
Figures for the number of individuals making complaints to the PHSO:
2014/15 23,899
2013/14 24,659
[3]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/2...
Difference between figures:
2014/15 5,101 (29,000-23,899)
20/13/14 2,614 (27,273-24,659)
Please provide a copy of all information held that explains the difference
in these figures and accounts for the 95% increase. On the face of it, it
would appear that some individuals had multiple cases totaling 5,101 in
2014/15 and 2,614 in 2013/14.
For each of the two years concerned, please provide details of the number
of individuals who had multiple cases. Please specify the number of
individuals who had 2,3,4,5 cases etc.
Yours faithfully,
J Roberts
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[4][FOI #302561 email]
Is [5][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:
[6]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:
[7]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.
D. Speers left an annotation ()
So what is the difference between "enquiry, review or investigation?"......I was always led to believe they are roughly the same!
Fiona Watts left an annotation ()
Oh my?!
Those PHSO-paper-pushers seem more than happy to waste the public's time by picking holes between "enquiry, review or investigation".
The farce is that PHSO seems to repeatedly fail in its remit as an "investigator".
For example, although the PHSO have a track record of acknowledging "maladministration" against victims of clinical negligence, the PHSO have repeatedly failed to clarify what they mean by the term "maladministration".
This tactic of nitpicking at YOUR enquiry further demonstrates how the PHSO attempt to confused an enquiry.
Is the PHSO a threat to Public Health in the UK?
Dear foiofficer,
You have responded that:
'An ‘enquiry’ relates an individual contacting us, in relation to anything.'
You appear to be using the word 'enquiry' to mean 'contact':
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/2...
Please confirm that you are using the words 'enquiry' and 'contact' to mean the same thing.
You have revealed in your response that:
'Total individuals complained to phso' fell from 25,227 in 2013/14 to 24,453 in 2014/15.
In an earlier response you revealed that:
'Number of individuals who made a complaint to PHSO' fell from 24,659 in 2013/14 to 23,899 in 2014/15.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/2...
As you can see, there is a discrepancy in the figures – 568 for 2013/14 and 554 for 2014/15. Please provide information to explain these discrepancies.
Additionally, please provide any information that was distributed to staff in either 2013/14 or 2014/15 concerning how to categorize the details contained in a complaint form and how to identify multiple discrete complaints.
Yours sincerely,
J Roberts
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
J Roberts left an annotation ()
The very large increase in cases involving multiple complaints is noteworthy. Have more complainants clearly identified multiple complaints on their forms, or has the PHSO become more adept at identifying multiple complaints? A cynic could easily take the latter view, as it makes the PHSO appear busier. Whatever, the figures clearly show that fewer people made complaints to the PHSO in 2014/15 than 2013/14
D. Speers left an annotation ()
If Enquiry review and investigation are deemed the same......many can be bamboozeled with unclear terminology!.......Maybe self protection extends to complainants too.
Wonder what category this is in?
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/new...
[Name Removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()
Dealing with the Ombudsman is not an easy path - even filling out the online form has its problems.
Perhaps people are just giving up.
And, if the cynics are right, and the PHSO is fiddling the figures by finding more than one complaint to inflate the commercial 'sales' figures, it is sad that such an public institution should demean itself in this way.
D. Speers left an annotation ()
Completely agree.........and maybe the 40+ case workers that looked into my complaint have stretched resources too!
phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()
Why is the column split in the table given with this response? In the first part there are four columns but only data for two years. In the other boxes only two columns. Can you ask for an explanation? Once again PHSO seek to confuse.
Dear J Roberts,
FDN-243028
It appears you have attached the same hyperlink twice. Did you intend to
attach a different one?
Yours sincerely,
Rebyn Buleti
FOI/DP Team
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
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
Dear foiofficer,
Thank you for your request for clarification. I meant to attach the same hyperlink twice. In the first instance, it relates to the first table in the document linked to (contacts); in the second, it relates to the other table (individuals). Apologies for not being clearer.
Yours sincerely,
J Roberts
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
J Roberts left an annotation ()
I hope this makes sense, because I couldn't understand my draft!
The second and forth columns of figures in the first table show individuals multiplied by the number of complaints made. Columns one and two relate to year 2013/14 and columns three and four relate to year 2014/15. So, for example, 202 individuals (column one) each with three complaints gives a figure of 606 (column two).
There is a big jump in multiple complaints, but have they been 'manufactured' to suit the needs of the PHSO? Fewer individuals brought complaints.
The remaining tables concern only 2014/15.
Fiona Watts left an annotation ()
is The Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman just a dodgy BOUNCER/ DOORMAN for the NHS complaints system?
How can the NHS learn from its mistakes when the PHSO put SO much effort into covering up any NHS errors?
How can we be expected to "LOVE" the NHS in the face of repeated cover ups? Cover ups are a CANCER to progress!
FionaWatts@magnacarta300
Dear J Roberts
I am afraid that your information request is still not clear to us.
Please could you advise me where you obtained the following figures from?
'Total individuals complained to phso' fell from 25,227 in 2013/14 to
24,453 in 2014/15’.
They do not seem to derive from the link you provided.
Yours sincerely
Aimee Gasston
Freedom of Information / Data Protection Officer
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
W: [1]www.ombudsman.org.uk
Please email the FOI/DP team at: [2][email address]
From: J Roberts [mailto:[FOI #302561 email]]
Sent: 15 December 2015 22:44
To: foiofficer
Subject: Re: Request for clarification of information request
Dear foiofficer,
Thank you for your request for clarification. I meant to attach the
same hyperlink twice. In the first instance, it relates to the
first table in the document linked to (contacts); in the second, it
relates to the other table (individuals). Apologies for not being
clearer.
Yours sincerely,
J Roberts
Dear foiofficer,
I obtained the figures from the attachment with your response dated 10 December 2015 ref. FDN – 240384:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/3...
I have noticed that one digit is incorrect. Where I wrote '24,453' I should have written '24,452''.
Yours sincerely,
J Roberts
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
Dear J Roberts
Many thanks for your additional clarification.
Yours sincerely
Aimee Gasston
Freedom of Information / Data Protection Officer
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
W: [1]www.ombudsman.org.uk
Please email the FOI/DP team at: [2][email address]
From: J Roberts [mailto:[FOI #302561 email]]
Sent: 04 January 2016 21:12
To: foiofficer
Subject: Re: Your information request (FDN-243028)
Dear foiofficer,
I obtained the figures from the attachment with your response dated
10 December 2015 ref. FDN 240384:
[3]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/3...
I have noticed that one digit is incorrect. Where I wrote '24,453'
I should have written '24,452''.
Yours sincerely,
J Roberts
Dear J Roberts
Your information request (FDN-243028)
Thank you for your email of 11 December 2015 and your additional
clarification.
Your request is formed of three parts. First, you have asked whether the
terms ‘enquiry’ and ‘contact’ mean the same thing. I can advise that they
do not. A ‘contact’ refers to an individual email received into PHSO’s
main mailbox, or an individual letter or phone call received (these could
be requests for PHSO to look at a complaint or correspondence relating to
an existing complaint that PHSO is currently looking or has already looked
at). An ‘enquiry’ refers solely to a request for PHSO to look at a
complaint.
Secondly, you have asked about an apparent discrepancy in figures provided
in response to previous Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, in relation
to total numbers of individuals who complained to PHSO. I will summarise
these below.
In response to FDN-240384, we advised that we received 27,566 enquiries in
2013/14 and 28,189 in 2014/15 and that 25,227 individuals complained to
PHSO in 2013/14 and 24,452 in 2014/15.
In response to FDN-228941, we advised that PHSO was contacted 84,081 times
in 2014/15 and 101,335 times in 2014/15. We also advised that these
figures likely represented 24,659 individuals in 2013/14 and 23,899 in
2014/15.
The difference in figures is explained by different modes of reporting.
In order to work out the total number of individuals contacting PHSO in
2013/14 and 2014/15 provided in FDN-228941, a list of the total number of
cases received in those years was taken and the names of different
individuals counted (regardless of how many complaints each had made).
However, this method omits any complaints made to us anonymously, and also
runs the risk of different individuals being counted as one if they share
the same name.
When we responded to the later request, FDN-240384, our reporting methods
had improved. Data on individuals was drawn from unique references on our
casework management system, rather than relying solely on names. In
addition, each anonymous complaint was counted as a separate individual.
I hope that this satisfactorily explains the difference in figures. I am
sorry for any confusion caused.
Finally, you have asked whether information was provided to staff (in
either 2013/14 or 2014/15) on how to categorise details contained in a
complaint form and how to identify multiple discrete complaints. I can
confirm that communication of this description was not sent out to staff.
Guidance to staff is published as part of our casework policy and
guidance. Current guidance is available on our website at the following
link:
[1]http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/bei...
I hope that this information is helpful.
Yours sincerely
Aimee Gasston
Freedom of Information / Data Protection Officer
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
W: [2]www.ombudsman.org.uk
Please email the FOI/DP team at: [3][email address]
From: J Roberts [mailto:[FOI #302561 email]]
Sent: 11 December 2015 13:41
To: foiofficer
Subject: RE: Freedom of Information request - Stats Query: new cases and
number of individuals
Dear foiofficer,
You have responded that:
'An enquiry relates an individual contacting us, in relation to
anything.'
You appear to be using the word 'enquiry' to mean 'contact':
[4]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/2...
Please confirm that you are using the words 'enquiry' and 'contact'
to mean the same thing.
You have revealed in your response that:
'Total individuals complained to phso' fell from 25,227 in 2013/14
to 24,453 in 2014/15.
In an earlier response you revealed that:
'Number of individuals who made a complaint to PHSO' fell from
24,659 in 2013/14 to 23,899 in 2014/15.
[5]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/2...
As you can see, there is a discrepancy in the figures 568 for
2013/14 and 554 for 2014/15. Please provide information to explain
these discrepancies.
Additionally, please provide any information that was distributed
to staff in either 2013/14 or 2014/15 concerning how to categorize
the details contained in a complaint form and how to identify
multiple discrete complaints.
Yours sincerely,
J Roberts
Dear foiofficer,
Thanks for the response. I have a number of queries.
You have written:
“When we responded to the later request, FDN-240384, our reporting methods had improved. Data on individuals was drawn from unique references on our casework management system, rather than relying solely on names. In addition, each anonymous complaint was counted as a separate individual.“
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...
Please provide information to confirm:
1 The number of anonymous complaints that were attributed to separate individuals in your response (FDN-240384);
2. any information that exists to support PHSO reasoning that no individual made more than one anonymous complaint;
3. the number of names shared by people wrongly attributed to separate individuals before the introduction of your 'improved' reporting methods; and
4. the number of separate individuals who shared the names in answer to (3).
Yours sincerely,
J Roberts
J Roberts left an annotation ()
i queried this statement written by the PHSO:
“An ‘enquiry’ relates an individual contacting us, in relation to anything.”
I received this response:
“An ‘enquiry’ refers solely to a request for PHSO to look at a complaint".
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
[Name Removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()
Trying to communicate with the PHSO is exactiy like being Alice talking to Humpty Dumpty:
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
http://sabian.org/looking_glass6.php
Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,
I forgot to add something, which relates to the first of my requests:
"1 The number of anonymous complaints that were attributed to separate individuals in your response (FDN-240384)."
Please provide me with a breakdown showing how these anonymous complaints were received - letter, email etc.
Sincere apologies for any inconvenience caused.
Yours faithfully,
J Roberts
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
Fiona Watts left an annotation ()
On Tuesday 12 January the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) held its annual scrutiny session with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO), Dame Julie Mellor. The Committee heard from her and Mick Martin about their work in 2014-15 and the strategy for the continuing operation of the service.
Link; http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/3d6...
Curious as to why Parliament do NOT subject this public Service Department to the same level of scrutiny as our volunteers J Roberts and Jt Oakley do on this brilliant volunteer run web site?
I do not have my fellow campaigners skills-set, stamina & intelligence. BUT I'd like to think that those elected to scrutinize the PHSO - would have represented the public's interests just as rigorously?!
I mean ... that is Parliament's job right ... to keep an eye on the stats and statements dished out by The Ombudsman?
FionaWatts@magnacarta300
[Name Removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()
Thank you Fiona. It can now be read on site as well.
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidenc...
Dear J Roberts
Your information request (FDN-245171)
I am writing to you in response to your email of 14 January 2016 in which
you asked us to compare two sets of statistical data and provide data on
changes in reporting.
First of all, I will respond to your second question, which asks for ‘any
information that exists to support PHSO reasoning that no individual made
more than one anonymous complaint’. I can confirm that we hold no data
relevant to this part of your request. In addition, I would like to
explain that we have not made such an assertion.
I will now turn to questions one, three and four, which ask for numerical
data. While we hold this information, we have estimated that it would
take over eight hours of work to extract the information needed to comply
with your request. We have determined that this information would be of
little or no benefit to the wider public and therefore it would require a
disproportionate amount of resources to extract it for you. We have
therefore concluded that section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 applies to this part of your request.
If you would like to request an internal review of my handling of your
information request, you can do so by responding to this email. Beyond
that, it is open to you to complain to the Information Commissioner’s
Office ([1]www.ico.org.uk).
Yours sincerely
Aimee Gasston
Freedom of Information / Data Protection Team
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
W: [2]www.ombudsman.org.uk
Please email the FOI/DP team at: [3][email address]
From: J Roberts [mailto:[FOI #302561 email]]
Sent: 14 January 2016 14:10
To: foiofficer
Subject: RE: Freedom of Information request - Stats Query: new cases and
number of individuals
Dear foiofficer,
Thanks for the response. I have a number of queries.
You have written:
When we responded to the later request, FDN-240384, our reporting
methods had improved. Data on individuals was drawn from unique
references on our casework management system, rather than relying
solely on names. In addition, each anonymous complaint was counted
as a separate individual.
[4]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...
Please provide information to confirm:
1 The number of anonymous complaints that were attributed to
separate individuals in your response (FDN-240384);
2. any information that exists to support PHSO reasoning that no
individual made more than one anonymous complaint;
3. the number of names shared by people wrongly attributed to
separate individuals before the introduction of your 'improved'
reporting methods; and
4. the number of separate individuals who shared the names in
answer to (3).
Yours sincerely,
J Roberts
J Roberts left an annotation ()
The PHSO wrote: "each anonymous complaint was counted as a separate individual"
Then wrote:
"First of all, I will respond to your second question, which asks for ‘any information that exists to support PHSO reasoning that no individual made more than one anonymous complaint’. I can confirm that we hold no data relevant to this part of your request. In addition, I would like to explain that we have not made such an assertion. "
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 'Stats Query: new cases and number of individuals'.
In each of the two years – 2013/14 and 2014/15 – your 'improved' reporting methods increased the number of individuals complaining by over 500. You have explained that the increase in each year was accounted for by:
1. counting each anonymous complaint as a separate individual; and
2. not attributing people who shared the same name to a single complaint by using unique references from your casework management system.
The figures, 568 in 2013/14 and 554 in 2014/15 to be precise, are quite large and I do not see how you could not hold information showing how many of the additional individuals in each year were accounted for by:
1. counting each anonymous complaint as a separate individual; and
2. the use of unique reference numbers.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...
Yours faithfully,
J Roberts
Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your correspondence.
[Name Removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()
Oh dear.. Seems to be getting to the 'don't know- don't care' stage.
J Roberts left an annotation ()
Figures for the number of individuals making complaints to the PHSO
FDN-228941 (12 November 2015) 24,659 in 2013/14 23,899 in 2014/15
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/2...
Total individuals who complained to PHSO
FDN-240384 25,227 in 2013/14 24,452 in 2014/15
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/3...
Normally when figures on something are reported by an organisation, the figures stay the same when they are again reported. As you can see, there are significant differences in the two sets of figures. In the second set (FDN-240384), the figures have been boosted by 'improved' reporting methods :
"Data on individuals was drawn from unique references on our casework management system, rather than relying solely on names. In addition, each anonymous complaint was counted as a separate individual."
This is the first time I have been made aware of the 'statistical boost' method of reporting favoured by the PHSO. If the PHSO cannot provide a breakdown of how the boost is constituted it raises serious questions about the reliability of the figures, in my opinion.
D. Speers left an annotation ()
Thank you for your tenacity, I agree with your latest findings . Your FOI requests are very informative Thanks again!
[Name Removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()
If the PHSO carelessly overspent the government budget..
The National Auditor says it wasn't 'presenting accurate financial data'.
There is reason to beIieve that it's adding up wasn't entirely competent in any other respect
P91 onwards
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/pdfs/publica...
phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()
If you make the figures up as you go along it can be difficult to recall them accurately.
Dear J Roberts
We are writing in response to your email of 13 February 2016.
We are sorry that you are dissatisfied with our handling of your
information request regarding 'Stats Query: new cases and number of
individuals'.
Under our internal complaints procedure, your complaint has been passed to
our Head of Risk, Assurance and Programme Management Office, Mr Steve
Brown.
Mr Brown will consider your concerns and will send you a full reply once
his review is complete. This review of your complaint is the only review
that we will undertake.
We aim to reply to such complaints within 40 working days.
Kind regards
Customer Care Team
Steve Brown
Head of Risk and Assurance
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
E: [email address]
W: [1]www.ombudsman.org.uk
Follow us on
[2]fb [3]twitter [4]linkedin
References
Visible links
1. http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
2. http://www.facebook.com/phsombudsman
3. http://www.twitter.com/PHSOmbudsman
4. http://www.linkedin.com/company/parliame...
J Roberts left an annotation ()
I have serious concerns about the reliability of some of the statistical information provided by the PHSO. For example, "new cases we have handled" from page 15 of the 2014/15 Annual Report reveals the following figures:
2014/15 – 29,000
2013/14 – 27,273
Now consider the number of "enquiries received" (FDN 240348):
2014/15 – 28,189
2013/14 – 27,566
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/3...
As you can see, more cases were handled in 2014/15 than enquiries received in the same year!
The great increase in the number of individuals with multiple complaints during 2014/15 has not been explained to my satisfaction (up 95% on the previous year). The table provided in FDN 240348 shows how many individuals had multiple complaints. But my FoI request dated 15/11/15 referred to CASES not complaints.
It is easy to envisage a case with more than one complaint, but it is not so easy to envisage a separate individual with more than one case. If the numbers for "new cases we have handled" are correct, and the numbers for "individuals who made a complaint to PHSO "are correct - https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/2... – I find myself wondering whether a wish on the part of the PHSO to deal with cases withing a particular timescale has resulted in more investigations being closed and restarted - thereby allowing for the clock to be reset and to meet timescales.
Finally, I will deal directly to Mr Brown's response to my request for an internal review. Mr Brown states that to extract the information I requested "would be a disproportionate use of our resources". But the information I requested on anonymous complaints must have already existed (In fact, "reporting methods had improved" because of it. Consider the following:
"When we responded to the later request, FDN-240384, our reporting methods had improved. Data on individuals was drawn from unique references on our casework management system, rather than relying solely on names. In addition, each anonymous complaint was counted as a separate individual."
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...
We now have a situation where the PHSO has stuffed its figures with a category of "anonymous complaints" but Steve Brown can provide no information on how many anonymous complaints there were. Openness, transparency and idiocy!
phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()
Think of a number, double it, add 10, take away the number you first thought of ... Like a conjuring trick PHSO make the data fit the facts and when the facts change the data changes with it. Not to be trusted any of it.
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
D. Speers left an annotation ()
Thank you for this FOI request!