Suspect clinical advice - will cases be reopened?
Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,
1. When clinical advisors are found to be negligent in their own field, will the PHSO reinvestigate any cases on which they have advised?
2. Is there any robust mechanism that the PHSO uses to monitor an advisor's reputation and efficiency :
Before - during - and after ..
.. the PHSO employs an advisor?
Here is a report of one such negligent PHSO ex-advisor, currently in the news:
A retired phone engineer has received a £15,000 payout after taking legal action against a leading dentist for “ruining” his teeth.
Richard Jordan was a patient for more than 30 years of Dr Howard Myers, a former dentistry adviser to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, as well as the Brent and Harrow Health Authority.
Yet Mr Jordan, 65, claims the care provided by Dr Myers at his practice in Golders Green Road, Golders Green, left him unable to eat properly for two years.
The former BT engineer, of Agincourt Road, Gospel Oak, launched a legal claim in 2012 and, after a two-year battle, has finally secured a £15,000 payout in an out-of-court settlement.
He said: “Dr Myers treated me for more than 30 years. My teeth have been ruined and I now need to pay for expensive repeat treatment.
“I didn’t know my oral health was getting worse and I’ve now found out I’ve lost some of the bone in my mouth. Dr Myers left me in the dark.”
Mr Jordan suffers from gum disease and bone loss and faces dental therapy for the rest of his life.
Dr Myers is no longer practicing after voluntarily giving up his registration with the General Dental Council (GDC) in 2012.
At the time, he was due to face 18 allegations of providing poor care at a GDC hearing, following a complaint lodged by Mr Jordan.
Among the allegations, it was said Dr Myers had missed signs of gum disease, failed to diagnose infected molars, failed to treat tooth decay and fitted a crown so badly that it caused a fracture.
Dr Myers’ voluntary removal from the dental register resulted in the GDC hearing never taking place, but Mr Jordan was determined to pursue the matter.
http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/disgruntle...
3. In the light of this case, is the PHSO now considering naming it's clinical advisors so that complainants can be assured that their reputation and qualifications match the case under investigation?
Yours faithfully,
[Name Removed]
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
x>"o !6E1F66A9DFFC224E8498F0B6A7939513I
/G /HT0'Jt Oakley'0Vrequest-215768-842f7705@whatdotheyknow.com0
SMTP_+nT'Jt Oakley'SMTPrequest-215768-842f7705@whatdotheyknow.com9Vrequest-215768-842f7705@whatdotheyknow.com :'Jt Oakley'9@:q:____Jt Oakley_____UGLE<[email address]>4<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004... xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-GB;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Ms [first name redacted] Oakley<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>By email only<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>7 July 2014<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Dear Ms [first name redacted] Oakley<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>RE: your information request (FDN-193471)<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><o:p> </o:p></b></p><p class=MsoNormal>I write further to your email of 9 June 2014. I have considered your questions under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and respond in turn below.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:36.0pt'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>‘1. When clinical advisors are found to be negligent in their own field, will the PHSO reinvestigate any cases on which they have advised?’<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal>I can confirm that we do not hold any recorded information and there are no plans to develop a policy on this subject.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:36.0pt'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>‘2. Is there any robust mechanism that the PHSO uses to monitor an advisor's reputation and efficiency before - during - and after ... the PHSO employs an advisor?’ <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>PHSO utilises a number of mechanisms to monitor the efficiency and reputation of clinical advisors and by extension of the PHSO itself. These include pre-employment checks, contractual agreements for clinical advisors requiring disclosure of any change in circumstances, and on-going quality assurance activities to ensure advice is of a consistent and suitable standard appropriate to the service. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:36.0pt'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>‘3. In the light of this case, is the PHSO now considering naming it's clinical advisors so that complainants can be assured that their reputation and qualifications match the case under investigation?’<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-top:12.0pt'>As we have previously explained to you (<a href="http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/wh...>www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/why_are_w...</a>),<span style='background:#F3F3F3'> historically PHSO has always named its clinical advisers and provided their qualifications in its final investigation reports. In cases which were not subject to a statutory investigation by the Ombudsman (assessments), we usually provided that information on request unless there were overriding reasons not to.<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><br><br><span style='background:#F3F3F3'>As we deliver more investigations for more of our customers in line with our strategy, it remains the case that we routinely provide our customers with the qualifications of the clinical advisers who have commented on their case. We also continue to name them in some of our investigation reports. However, where they have not been named we would consider a request for this information on a case by case basis and in line with information legislation. Clearly, we would treat a request of this kind with parity and without regard to the nationality of the requester.<span class=apple-converted-space> <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Yours sincerely<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>David Thomas<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class=MsoNormal>FOI/Data Protection Officer<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US>-----Original Message-----<br>From: [Name Removed] [mailto:[FOI #215768 email]] <br>Sent: 09 June 2014 17:29<br>To: foiofficer<br>Subject: Freedom of Information request - Suspect clinical advice - will cases be reopened?</span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>1. When clinical advisors are found to be negligent in their own field, will the PHSO reinvestigate any cases on which they have advised?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>2. Is there any robust mechanism that the PHSO uses to monitor an advisor's reputation and efficiency : <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Before - during - and after ..<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>.. the PHSO employs an advisor? <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Here is a report of one such negligent PHSO ex-advisor, currently in the news: <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>A retired phone engineer has received a £15,000 payout after taking legal action against a leading dentist for “ruining” his teeth.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Richard Jordan was a patient for more than 30 years of Dr Howard Myers, a former dentistry adviser to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, as well as the Brent and Harrow Health Authority.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Yet Mr Jordan, 65, claims the care provided by Dr Myers at his practice in Golders Green Road, Golders Green, left him unable to eat properly for two years.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>The former BT engineer, of Agincourt Road, Gospel Oak, launched a legal claim in 2012 and, after a two-year battle, has finally secured a £15,000 payout in an out-of-court settlement.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>He said: “Dr Myers treated me for more than 30 years. My teeth have been ruined and I now need to pay for expensive repeat treatment.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>“I didn’t know my oral health was getting worse and I’ve now found out I’ve lost some of the bone in my mouth. Dr Myers left me in the dark.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Mr Jordan suffers from gum disease and bone loss and faces dental therapy for the rest of his life.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Dr Myers is no longer practicing after voluntarily giving up his registration with the General Dental Council (GDC) in 2012.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>At the time, he was due to face 18 allegations of providing poor care at a GDC hearing, following a complaint lodged by Mr Jordan.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Among the allegations, it was said Dr Myers had missed signs of gum disease, failed to diagnose infected molars, failed to treat tooth decay and fitted a crown so badly that it caused a fracture.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Dr Myers’ voluntary removal from the dental register resulted in the GDC hearing never taking place, but Mr Jordan was determined to pursue the matter.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><a href="http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/disgruntle...><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/disgruntle...</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>3. In the light of this case, is the PHSO now considering naming it's clinical advisors so that complainants can be assured that their reputation and qualifications match the case under investigation?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Yours faithfully,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>[Name Removed]<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>-------------------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Please use this email address for all replies to this request:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><a href="mailto:[FOI #215768 email]"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>[FOI #215768 email]</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Is <a href="mailto:[email address]"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>[email address]</span></a> the wrong address for Freedom of Information requests to Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman? If so, please contact us using this form:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>-------------------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>On entering the GSI, this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Cable & Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>In case of problems, please call your organisational IT Helpdesk.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>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 <a href="http://www.cctmark.gov.uk"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>www.cctmark.gov.uk</span></a><o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>Bfoiofficere8foiofficer@ombudsman.org.ukd
SMTPAp+nTfoiofficerSMTPfoiofficer@ombudsman.org.ukfoiofficer8foiofficer@ombudsman.org.uk
SMTPp+nTfoiofficerSMTPfoiofficer@ombudsman.org.uk1@@:0@IPM.Note#&)+.6@9sG6c=GB;a= ;p=OPCA-HSC;l=OPHSOEXC01-140707164721Z-146506pFreedom of Information request - Suspect clinical advice - will cases be reopened?qσqnAn⮢ 5<6248FCCDB6E0D741B836AD5E285C5C350FD38F808E@OPHSOEXC01.opca-hsc.com>9f<ogm-362964+5395e0d62a323-7b04@whatdotheyknow.com>Bf<ogm-362964+5395e0d62a323-7b04@whatdotheyknow.com>RE%3A Freedom of Information request - Suspect clinical advice - will cases be reopened%3F.EML<@0Ȫ@00nf"N0Fwxwl~FEFo
j<Fr/ML/bHͶA6^(\\5ӭ>0qnAn⮢0?? ?foiofficer?Kܧ@B+//O=OPCA-HSC/OU=OPCA-HSC/CN=USERS/CN=FIOOFFICER?foiofficer?Kܧ@B+//O=OPCA-HSC/OU=OPCA-HSC/CN=USERS/CN=FIOOFFICER?@@Y YebHͶA6^(\\5M0a F F F F@nAABDemoProtective MarkingABDemoProtective Marking1ABDemoProtective MarkingATitusLabs.TMCVersionTitusLabs.TMCVersion)TitusLabs.TMCVersionE
VF-ITEM-ID
VF-ITEM-ID
VF-ITEM-ID F F F F F)FVF-ITEM-IDD2456847:19599326:193475:M02765474F x-titus-version3.5.9.3F>x-tituslabs-classifications-30fTLPropertyRoot=ABDemo;Protective Marking=UNMARKED;FDx-tituslabs-classificationhash-302VgNFIFU9Hx+/nZJb9Kg7ItGbtEWge4yXgNihCcMUh0kUnblXkyY5ZWHpb5VTWjvtyEdDzRXcAWqC1wsVe8LQfN1x6mjyBwn0Z42gyIORZvAYBMBop46EkNGfzgI7UoUg44G++ktKpKlSBKPBa6yY47Ro0cx8WNvbNEdKu7klmC6SBlNWi9A15kb3ZzQYA9d+7TTVG9pad8xPjd7c6jfJ4mjaxcSyp841h6LUav9DXHFuOJlzNwaQ9TuQdwc+eEKLPWYvILuI0oAC3RjT0N6meg== FIPM.Note3z.B{yᩎT8ConversationIndexTrackingExII=01CF83FFF2B8D4E37116936E41A4A2F0BD6EE2AEA2D20580C60120;SBMID=2;SBT=2;THA=1084790403;Version=Version 15.0 (Build 847.0), Stage=H7)F*TitusLabs.TMCVersion3.5.9.3)F2ABDemoProtective MarkingUNMARKED
4?4T)+*%7RE: Freedom of Information request - Suspect clinical advice - will cases be reopened?=
RE: ]z
[ WhatDoTheyKnow note: The above text was badly encoded, and has had strange characters removed. ]
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 foiofficer,
Thank you for your brief answer of 'x>"o'.
But I was hoping for something rather more enlightening.
Yours sincerely,
[Name Removed]
Ms [first name redacted] Oakley
Please find the original email sent yesterday below.
We have advised What Do They Know of the issues with these responses being
posted.
Kind regards
David Thomas
FOI/Data Protection Officer
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
E: [1][email address]
W: [2]www.ombudsman.org.uk
From: foiofficer
Sent: 07 July 2014 17:47
To: '[Name Removed]'
Subject: RE: Freedom of Information request - Suspect clinical advice -
will cases be reopened?
Ms [first name redacted] Oakley
By email only
7 July 2014
Dear Ms [first name redacted] Oakley
RE: your information request (FDN-193471)
I write further to your email of 9 June 2014. I have considered your
questions under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and respond in turn
below.
‘1. When clinical advisors are found to be negligent in their own field,
will the PHSO reinvestigate any cases on which they have advised?’
I can confirm that we do not hold any recorded information and there are
no plans to develop a policy on this subject.
‘2. Is there any robust mechanism that the PHSO uses to monitor an
advisor's reputation and efficiency before - during - and after ... the
PHSO employs an advisor?’
PHSO utilises a number of mechanisms to monitor the efficiency and
reputation of clinical advisors and by extension of the PHSO itself. These
include pre-employment checks, contractual agreements for clinical
advisors requiring disclosure of any change in circumstances, and on-going
quality assurance activities to ensure advice is of a consistent and
suitable standard appropriate to the service.
‘3. In the light of this case, is the PHSO now considering naming it's
clinical advisors so that complainants can be assured that their
reputation and qualifications match the case under investigation?’
As we have previously explained to you
([3]www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/why_are_welsh_complainants_allow#comment-49383),
historically PHSO has always named its clinical advisers and provided
their qualifications in its final investigation reports. In cases which
were not subject to a statutory investigation by the Ombudsman
(assessments), we usually provided that information on request unless
there were overriding reasons not to.
As we deliver more investigations for more of our customers in line with
our strategy, it remains the case that we routinely provide our customers
with the qualifications of the clinical advisers who have commented on
their case. We also continue to name them in some of our investigation
reports. However, where they have not been named we would consider a
request for this information on a case by case basis and in line with
information legislation. Clearly, we would treat a request of this kind
with parity and without regard to the nationality of the requester.
Yours sincerely
David Thomas
FOI/Data Protection Officer
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 foiofficer,
Where should I look for it as it doesn't appear to be on this thread?
Yours sincerely,
[Name Removed]
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
Ms [first name redacted] Oakley
Clicking on the 'show quoted sections' link on my previous email will display the response sent to you yesterday.
Kind regards
David Thomas
FOI/Data Protection Officer
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
E: [email address]
W: www.ombudsman.org.uk
Dear foiofficer,
Thank you.
In particular for the statement that there are no plans for the PHSO to reopen cases when clinical advisors are found to be negligent in some way.
However, you will recall that my previous request on clinical advisors only elicited the answer that the names and qualifications of clinical advisors see advised AFTER they had made their reports.
What I was asking ..'before..during.. after' was if the names and qualifications of clinical advisors will now be given to complainants BEFORE their complaint cases are passed to them, so that complainants can check that their cases will be satisfactorily processed by a correctly qualified individual BEFORE an investigation states.
Clearly this would enhance the transparency reputation of the PHSO if this is now the policy in the light of the quoted case in this request, if the PHSO has no intention of re-opening suspect cases.
And prevent a great deal of anguish for complainants who have had their cases reviewed by individuals which they feels do not have the expert qualifications necessary for complicated cases.
Could you therefore confirm that the PHSO will /or will not ...allow complainants to know of the names and qualifications of its clinical advisors BEFORE cases are being reviewed by them, so that any objections can be raised at that stage,
Yours sincerely,
[Name Removed]
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
phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()
You are quite right J.T. Oakley, PHSO transparency on the issue of clinical advisors is totally opaque. Many in the Pressure Group have requested the names of qualifications of clinical advisors used in their cases and been denied access. This information should be given from the outset as once the decision is made it is set in stone as you have to convince the review team that an error was made. The other opaque issues is how much paperwork was seen by the clinical advisor in their decision making and what was left out. This one advisor, who may well be an expert in NHS complaints, can overturn the advice given by GPs, Psychologists and other specialist medical staff who have had first hand knowledge of the person, just by looking at the papers. This doesn't seem to be very balanced, but then he who pays the piper ....
x>" !45FB46968E1E1644A9241E2488D590E7
.'T .(UT0'Jt Oakley'0Vrequest-215768-842f7705@whatdotheyknow.com0
SMTP_+nT'Jt Oakley'SMTPrequest-215768-842f7705@whatdotheyknow.com9Vrequest-215768-842f7705@whatdotheyknow.com :'Jt Oakley'9@:q:____Jt Oakley_____U,9ME<[email address]>xMs Treharne Oakley
Thank you for your email of 8 July 2014.
In answer to your query, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman does not have any plans to release the names and qualifications of clinical advisors to complainants before clinical advice is provided.
I hope this information is helpful.
Regards
David Thomas
FOI/Data Protection Officer
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
E: foiofficer@ombudsman.org.uk
W: www.ombudsman.org.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: Jt Oakley [mailto:request-215768-842f7705@whatdotheyknow.com]
Sent: 08 July 2014 10:59
To: foiofficer
Subject: RE: AUTORESPONSE - RE: Freedom of Information request - Suspect clinical advice - will cases be reopened?
Dear foiofficer,
Thank you.
In particular for the statement that there are no plans for the PHSO to reopen cases when clinical advisors are found to be negligent in some way.
However, you will recall that my previous request on clinical advisors only elicited the answer that the names and qualifications of clinical advisors see advised AFTER they had made their reports.
What I was asking ..'before..during.. after' was if the names and qualifications of clinical advisors will now be given to complainants BEFORE their complaint cases are passed to them, so that complainants can check that their cases will be satisfactorily processed by a correctly qualified individual BEFORE an investigation states.
Clearly this would enhance the transparency reputation of the PHSO if this is now the policy in the light of the quoted case in this request, if the PHSO has no intention of re-opening suspect cases.
And prevent a great deal of anguish for complainants who have had their cases reviewed by individuals which they feels do not have the expert qualifications necessary for complicated cases.
Could you therefore confirm that the PHSO will /or will not ...allow complainants to know of the names and qualifications of its clinical advisors BEFORE cases are being reviewed by them, so that any objections can be raised at that stage,
Yours sincerely,
Jt Oakley
-----Original Message-----
Ms Treharne Oakley
Clicking on the 'show quoted sections' link on my previous email will display the response sent to you yesterday.
Kind regards
David Thomas
FOI/Data Protection Officer
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
E: [email address]
W: www.ombudsman.org.uk
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
request-215768-842f7705@whatdotheyknow.com
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET.
On entering the GSI, this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Cable & Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs.
In case of problems, please call your organisational IT Helpdesk.
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
LZFuWa
fbidccpg1252Ctextch
set0 mPM2
}
; b19 r
2qb* s atP`so Exn0]Rvrt}Pn1 dd R "\vwkd5S@
p0
qbkmks BM_BEGIN}
0t{M T pP Oakpy\l.e
0"Tk y`p$e0 8 July 14. #&#&Iqw& E$q
Pry,hP
"a0
%p`He@(GP"1udsdono@0'Q%Q1' ppa(n)a )(`@Pi %1c"/1 ad` 'mSpt b/*,``d&' ,@op-?3/q3r(lpf%40"Reg"D,`
@5p8FOI/9)k` c6O *r")*/+6"E:$1[/p<d@p+E.g.uk"W@PwBAA?""-DOg1 Msa0oD:a@PJ@"T v[$: p(a`-215768-842f7705@wt+(yk,{B1A]#&`0@P0%i :59#6HPc@iK6ubj;@PR!@AAUTOOpSPONSE -OcF +%1'068HuPq}Ns5;2Pl P1-a5Pd?DD>`@x,D#.D'1
/`c%W'(a =((2Q
.',[&)HSO4@-CUTI_"0\u>!'UAPg"1@[pQwayY]HJe1(#T pQ \Cm, p`` RV6`g%-PiB('f\U.%./0[ 0tQAFTER(¿%`(i pp sY]W\R5Pc@.qsg ..'2rdqr'P'r#-klTJU2E`01;Op^p1FSQT\
i'(m( \41KP_1(c#\F?zTTUAEvpsfofbo*|b=ret%uQx
uz60`EP6t[pC-=P%5w`l` {*(tp
c%pau[6%1(^bt5+(piA%b(bQhgqt(`;`Td3Hu(t^S+6 0 p-UrsSTY]A>!f\; \a0Q%1u>$B1KI',SorfЂT_P>o#f !+,^05uP=7vBs$\24 v0jh^ST/x%@r.ex1K'JuOvYip~wzE{2r},oOv~UBpn\c\aa0WYa -q(DGWDEF+"!퇐Pr6('xttp"#6fZ$T
Q-aSv[\'$yHdcQ#&"K-a89:;<=>?[$0dqs]B/C?=ΏϟY-S5ɛ$3epa"|:"HIJV
pr@P#3E,2\a$kc!p`Q둲t40O$3xpy1'qզtp0//ׯm/7t
I%@$b5*A7Ara"!%!W,-rq$t'bo0''f$ApvcP
0Y]_?OokPLEAPQ,NOnAHP`ABOVP`MPSAGP`WpOaCEIDPROM nNETYVOƱqr(GSI(ҧr2AnU$3`rA1G3[`Z2Q''0 (i)Ē*0pR
@@0%Cp & p0-bZrQ TǡLp'1#%13mswe0QITQ7 @rYV#O V3(ң!RԻ*'сP5d(CApa
`MW#(CCT0C$Nu+0!006/047)(UKzct@o0vpva,qӲ6!s3sup^0Fm2B6\"3-0ipc.g3A}!Bfoiofficere8foiofficer@ombudsman.org.ukd
SMTPAp+nTfoiofficerSMTPfoiofficer@ombudsman.org.ukfoiofficer8foiofficer@ombudsman.org.uk
SMTPp+nTfoiofficerSMTPfoiofficer@ombudsman.org.uk1@@:0@IPM.Note#&)+.6@9Y뢰G3c=GB;a= ;p=OPCA-HSC;l=OPHSOEXC01-140805114640Z-274pAUTORESPONSE - RE: Freedom of Information request - Suspect clinical advice - will cases be reopened?qϚ.a
gC"Bz#5<6248FCCDB6E0D741B836AD5E285C5C35121963FA5A@OPHSOEXC01.opca-hsc.com>9f<ogm-369106+53bbc0c8b38a4-c94e@whatdotheyknow.com>Bf<ogm-369106+53bbc0c8b38a4-c94e@whatdotheyknow.com>RE%3A AUTORESPONSE - RE%3A Freedom of Information request - Suspect clinical advice - will cases be reopened%3F.EML<@0$뢰@0M뢰0EFD$$Ր0Fwxwl~FEFo
j<Fr/ML/bHͶA6^(\\5ca0
gC"Bz0?? ?foiofficer?Kܧ@B+//O=OPCA-HSC/OU=OPCA-HSC/CN=USERS/CN=FIOOFFICER?foiofficer?Kܧ@B+//O=OPCA-HSC/OU=OPCA-HSC/CN=USERS/CN=FIOOFFICER?@@ YebHͶA6^(\\5h F F F F@nAABDemoProtective MarkingABDemoProtective Marking1ABDemoProtective MarkingATitusLabs.TMCVersionTitusLabs.TMCVersion)TitusLabs.TMCVersionE
VF-ITEM-ID
VF-ITEM-ID
VF-ITEM-ID F F F F F)FVF-ITEM-IDB2456876:4921303:193475:M02842446F x-titus-version3.5.9.3F>x-tituslabs-classifications-30fTLPropertyRoot=ABDemo;Protective Marking=UNMARKED;FDx-tituslabs-classificationhash-30VgNFIFU9Hx+/nZJb9Kg7Igmoojmh1KPuCk6fBuKYucf6CcjKD2Y6hbB29HfFU9HeTQynY0u6MR7+IoTZN2CYzMdcdCp0PFKeOyMRLuiSGlDN4imo/E7qngxZCFLC8BDOcGtxZSqpXO7XfvVkqExizKHs/QEltcgtUiQbt1o2tI/sdKkk/8pmi/whodnN2U9qjWWJY2GMxusGTPVmAa4zec6nSa4nHilnVfWkv9Cg1i3j88cMzfedunQ7jYnq3p6qkVfX1KmVyHXyUgm7Tv/xr+68xmt/9mmLwQa+T3YkxOWz/o5HDGV3o7kDLJvqJQvJ FIPM.Note3z.B{yᩎT8ConversationIndexTrackingExII=01CF9A932E610D67A29BC3E64322A442871B877AE2CE0583EC2380;SBMID=13;SBT=21;THA=3770450383;Version=Version 15.0 (Build 847.0), Stage=H7)F*TitusLabs.TMCVersion3.5.9.3)F2ABDemoProtective MarkingUNMARKED
4?4T)+*%7RE: AUTORESPONSE - RE: Freedom of Information request - Suspect clinical advice - will cases be reopened?=
RE: a
[ WhatDoTheyKnow note: The above text was badly encoded, and has had strange characters removed. ]
Ms [first name redacted] Oakley
Thank you for your email of 8 July 2014.
In answer to your query, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman does not have any plans to release the names and qualifications of clinical advisors to complainants before clinical advice is provided.
I hope this information is helpful.
Regards
David Thomas
FOI/Data Protection Officer
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
E: [email address]
W: www.ombudsman.org.uk
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 ()
It's as if the PHSO has never grasped the concept of a second opinion.
Patients can request two medical opinions - why not PHSO complainants?
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
[Name Removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()
For anyone who could not find the response:
From: foiofficer
Sent: 07 July 2014 17:47
To: 'Jt Oakley'
Subject: RE: Freedom of Information request - Suspect clinical advice -will cases be reopened?
Ms Janet Treharne Oakley
By email only
7 July 2014
Dear Ms Treharne Oakley
RE: your information request (FDN-193471)
I write further to your email of 9 June 2014. I have considered your
questions under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and respond in turn
below.
‘1. When clinical advisors are found to be negligent in their own field,
will the PHSO reinvestigate any cases on which they have advised?’
I can confirm that we do not hold any recorded information and there are no plans to develop a policy on this subject.
‘2. Is there any robust mechanism that the PHSO uses to monitor an
advisor's reputation and efficiency before - during - and after ... the
PHSO employs an advisor?’
PHSO utilises a number of mechanisms to monitor the efficiency and
reputation of clinical advisors and by extension of the PHSO itself. These include pre-employment checks, contractual agreements for clinical advisors requiring disclosure of any change in circumstances, and on-going quality assurance activities to ensure advice is of a consistent and suitable standard appropriate to the service.
‘3. In the light of this case, is the PHSO now considering naming it's
clinical advisors so that complainants can be assured that their
reputation and qualifications match the case under investigation?’
As we have previously explained to you
([3]www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/why_are_welsh_complainants_allow#comment-49383),
historically PHSO has always named its clinical advisers and provided their qualifications in its final investigation reports. In cases whichwere not subject to a statutory investigation by the Ombudsman (assessments), we usually provided that information on request unless there were overriding reasons not to.
As we deliver more investigations for more of our customers in line with
our strategy, it remains the case that we routinely provide our customers
with the qualifications of the clinical advisers who have commented on
their case. We also continue to name them in some of our investigation
reports. However, where they have not been named we would consider a
request for this information on a case by case basis and in line with
information legislation. Clearly, we would treat a request of this kind
with parity and without regard to the nationality of the requester.
Yours sincerely
David Thomas
FOI/Data Protection