Selby and York PCT 2005 10 28
|
This is the content of my letter on behalf of Sharon Wilson, which was acknowledged on 7 November 2005 but appears not to have elicited any other response28 October 2005 Penny Jones
Dear Ms Jones,
I am writing on behalf of Miss Sharon Wilson, [address], who has been punished by the insensitive and inappropriate application of the PCT’s vexatious complainants policy to the extent that her present medical needs are neglected. She needs to have the “vexatious complainant” label removed from all the places where it is applied, to have the PCT’s services such as PALS restored to her and available without prejudice, and to be allocated to a GP practice in which she has confidence, preferably to Dr Harris of Dr Myers & partners, Haxby Group Practice, Haxby/Wigginton Health Centre, 2 The Village, Wigginton, York, YO32 2LL. She tells me she has both chronic and acute illnesses. The chronic illnesses include agoraphobia, which means she needs either to be visited at home or to have transport provided from home. As part of the arrangements applied to “vexatious complainants” she is rotated every few weeks between GP practices. This is a procedure likely to lead to medical neglect. Recently she saw Dr Harris and was advised she needed urgent admission to hospital for an infection. This appears not to have been followed up with a hospital appointment, and as she has been moved down the rota to another GP it is not clear now how the matter should be progressed. I understand PALS, who would normally sort out problems of this nature, was instructed not to communicate with Miss Wilson. I am surprised to see that the NHS nationally recognises the concept of a vexatious complainant, even though it warns against over-use of the label and would not condone the withdrawal of services from anyone so labelled. It is unjust to judge the complainant rather than the complaint, and especially so if the labelling is by an organisation that may be the object of the complaint. Looking at your PCT’s vexatious complainants policy, I see that applying the criteria to anyone whose condition has deteriorated following treatment for a chronic illness could easily result in the application of the “vexatious complainant” label under most of the criteria if insensitively applied. This reinforces the point that the label should be withdrawn. · When a chronic illness is still not being adequately treated, any attempt to get treatment may be interpreted as reiteration of an earlier complaint about inadequate treatment. Likewise if she is asked to repeat her medical history, she is likely to refer to past unsuccessful or damaging treatment. · A patient suffering from multiple illnesses may mention the most pressing at different times and may appear to “continually raise new issues”. · While it may not be possible to prove to an independent person whether or not past unsuccessful treatment involved neglect or incompetence, the patient’s belief is sufficient to lead to a loss of confidence in the doctor concerned. This should be respected and a different doctor allocated. · Patients with multiple problems may have difficulty focusing on specific solvable issues. · Patients with multiple problems may need multiple contacts with the PCT, even if the problems are eventually successfully solved. ·
People attending important meetings are likely to make a record of
what was said, often relying on their own or a witness’s memory. If neither of
these is available, it would be reasonable to make an audio record. To do this
without permission may be a slight breach of etiquette, but would not justify
the denial of service that a “vexatious complainant” label entails. Part of Core Standard C14 for which the PCT needs to perform a self-assessment for the Annual Health Check states: “The healthcare organisation has systems in place to ensure that patients, carers and relatives are not discriminated against as a result of having complained.” While the PCT’s vexatious complainants policy has the effect of inhibiting access to NHS services, the PCT could only assess itself accurately as non-compliant. This may become a matter for attention by the Healthcare Commission.
Yours sincerely,
Sheila Porter-Williams |
|
Sheila
Porter-Williams |