Jump to content


The joke called the ombudsman


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2392 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

GOOD EVENING think about it

 

 

what we who have suffered at the incompetent hand of the ombudsman want is to have our complaint which at times are quite serious investigated independently not just pen pushers at the p.h.s.o writing to the very people who have been the cause of the complaint or there employers ie;practice manager asking them a few questions then believing everything they say and nothing you say.

I told my investigator " do you think I have wasted two years of my life going down the complaints route including the police if it were not true so you are calling me a

liar "

she wrote back saying she did not thing I was not telling the truth but according to the nurse and practice manager there were no suggestions on my medical records that I complained at the time. no I screamed the place down.

 

I think there you've hit the nail on the head, by independant do we need a non-govermental approach?

 

The challenge in this seems to be that as the PHSO are government funded, they become a government agency and so could be seen as not independant.

 

So, the alternative is perhaps a set up similar to Citizens Advice, a charity who recieves govt. funding but is independant. The issue you then face is that the accountability to the public is degraded as the 'independant charity / body' isn't subject to the same controls from Westminster, particularly in the realms of output / productivity.

 

It gets more challenging still in having specialists working for 'charity wages' and the funds needed to train and retain staff. I can only form judgement from what I've read on here and it's clear that strength of feeling and personal experience is key to people's perception of the PHSO, especially as the one person who did say that their experience was favourable didn't get the best reception...

 

It also comes down to what any investigation is capable of after the fact, unfortunately it seems from what information I have read that you had a very traumatic experience with your practice nurse, however trying to then get details of what happened two years later is always going to be challenging regardless of who conducts the investigation. I've dealt with issues that arose from consultations six months previous and even then I was completely reliant upon notes (recordings if they existed), and the recollection of those involved. So often those are the only things we have to go on and dealing with an issue a long time ago makes that even more challenging. I've no doubt that the events of that day are still crystal clear in your mind, however they're unlikely to be for the practice staff, not because they don't care but because of the sheer number of people we see on a daily basis.

 

I have to be honest, my office is just across the hallway from two of the consulting rooms and I'm no longer alarmed by the sounds of people in discomfort, it would take a lot for me to intervene at the time of the consultation when I have a baby immunisation clinic on a Monday that is basically 4 hours of constantly screaming children, or joint injections being done next door with the occasional muffled swearwords drifting through the walls or dressings being changed when people need to take morphine beforehand.

 

Having an independant investigation is something I'd welcome but besides interviewing those involved and consulting the notes it's difficult to see how else they could proceed, for the time being at least. Perhaps the case for recording is strong but the implementation on a national scale is something I quietly dread based on the difficulties that just changing computers and systems has brought.

My views are my own and are not representative of any organisation. if you've found my post helpful please click on the star below.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think there you've hit the nail on the head, by independant do we need a non-govermental approach?

 

The challenge in this seems to be that as the PHSO are government funded, they become a government agency and so could be seen as not independant.

 

So, the alternative is perhaps a set up similar to Citizens Advice, a charity who recieves govt. funding but is independant. The issue you then face is that the accountability to the public is degraded as the 'independant charity / body' isn't subject to the same controls from Westminster, particularly in the realms of output / productivity.

 

It gets more challenging still in having specialists working for 'charity wages' and the funds needed to train and retain staff. I can only form judgement from what I've read on here and it's clear that strength of feeling and personal experience is key to people's perception of the PHSO, especially as the one person who did say that their experience was favourable didn't get the best reception...

 

It also comes down to what any investigation is capable of after the fact, unfortunately it seems from what information I have read that you had a very traumatic experience with your practice nurse, however trying to then get details of what happened two years later is always going to be challenging regardless of who conducts the investigation. I've dealt with issues that arose from consultations six months previous and even then I was completely reliant upon notes (recordings if they existed), and the recollection of those involved. So often those are the only things we have to go on and dealing with an issue a long time ago makes that even more challenging. I've no doubt that the events of that day are still crystal clear in your mind, however they're unlikely to be for the practice staff, not because they don't care but because of the sheer number of people we see on a daily basis.

 

I have to be honest, my office is just across the hallway from two of the consulting rooms and I'm no longer alarmed by the sounds of people in discomfort, it would take a lot for me to intervene at the time of the consultation when I have a baby immunisation clinic on a Monday that is basically 4 hours of constantly screaming children, or joint injections being done next door with the occasional muffled swearwords drifting through the walls or dressings being changed when people need to take morphine beforehand.

 

Having an independant investigation is something I'd welcome but besides interviewing those involved and consulting the notes it's difficult to see how else they could proceed, for the time being at least. Perhaps the case for recording is strong but the implementation on a national scale is something I quietly dread based on the difficulties that just changing computers and systems has brought.[/quote

 

 

GOOD MORNING

 

 

yes the ombudsman are funded by the government but are then a law unto themselves appeals and reviews are conducted by themselves. i reported my complaint offically 2 months later after I was able to speak about it " not two years later "

this was not a maternity ward and any excessive continuous screaming should have been investigated, the whole reception staff which are near the nurses clinic had smirks on their faces when I left the surgery and when they thought I was out of earshot they could not stifle their mirth. you are right I have suffered my whole life has changed after this incident I do not spend two years of my life going down the complaints route for a pathetic response, the practice manager who I first complained to did not even record my complaint which I did not know until the results of the ombudsman he was found guilty of keeping incorrect records and told to overall his system. he lied to protect the nurse but the ombudsman were still happy to ask him to investigate this case for them. there are many people complicit in my case NURSE, PRACTISE MANAGER AND MY GP IN THAT ORDER.

so for me its about time someone with a sense of justice and intelligence should be able to make a bonfire and throw the whole ombudsman in it. I have not read yet a case where the ombudsman have democratically and legally fulfilled their obligations," although i am sure there must be a few, even when the ombudsman have been offered absolute proof they still find a way to discredit the victims

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's an interesting point here when you mention a 'pathetic response'. I've done a lot of work before coming to the NHS in various different charities and, before that, as a customer services manager for a few big companies. Whenever I'm dealing with a complaint I always try to find out what an acceptable response would be for the person complaining.

 

I mentioned in the thread a little lower down about referrals what I, as a PM, can offer in terms of a response to a complaint. I can provide explanations, I can look into and where possible change procedures to prevent things from going wrong again, the GP's can recognise shortcomings in their own knowledge / skills and where necessary seek out additional training and resources. I can apologise and routinely inform the health board of our progress thoughout the complaint and probably a hundred other things.

 

However, I won't ever know what's acceptable as a response if I don't ask. Now, whenever I complain about something I make sure I have a preferred outcome in mind because then I can be clear from the outset of my expectations and make sure that the other party know what that is.

 

I also know then when it's time to say to someone that I can't help them anymore, if they want to seek compensation then they need to get a solicitor involved, I'll provide copies of all relevant information to their representatives and to ours and then we leave them to it, equally over fitness to practice issues, we ensure that both the GMC/NMC and the defence union get access to everything they need and then we step back with an open door for anything else they may need. If it was something involving the police then again, we would do what we can to assist but our response has to relevent to the way in which the patient wishes to direct the complaint. Without knowing what someone's expectations are, we're completely blind.

 

If someone says 'I just want it sorting out' then I have to ask what does that mean for you, because my idea of sorting something out might be very different to yours.

 

Knowing what isn't pathetic in the eyes of the patient makes the whole process far more useful because we don't waste time offering unacceptable responses. Perhaps you've already made it very clear what outcome you're seeking, I don't know; but from my side of the desk knowing these things makes it a far less onerous process.

My views are my own and are not representative of any organisation. if you've found my post helpful please click on the star below.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think there's an interesting point here when you mention a 'pathetic response'. I've done a lot of work before coming to the NHS in various different charities and, before that, as a customer services manager for a few big companies. Whenever I'm dealing with a complaint I always try to find out what an acceptable response would be for the person complaining.

 

I mentioned in the thread a little lower down about referrals what I, as a PM, can offer in terms of a response to a complaint. I can provide explanations, I can look into and where possible change procedures to prevent things from going wrong again, the GP's can recognise shortcomings in their own knowledge / skills and where necessary seek out additional training and resources. I can apologise and routinely inform the health board of our progress thoughout the complaint and probably a hundred other things.

 

However, I won't ever know what's acceptable as a response if I don't ask. Now, whenever I complain about something I make sure I have a preferred outcome in mind because then I can be clear from the outset of my expectations and make sure that the other party know what that is.

 

I also know then when it's time to say to someone that I can't help them anymore, if they want to seek compensation then they need to get a solicitor involved, I'll provide copies of all relevant information to their representatives and to ours and then we leave them to it, equally over fitness to practice issues, we ensure that both the GMC/NMC and the defence union get access to everything they need and then we step back with an open door for anything else they may need. If it was something involving the police then again, we would do what we can to assist but our response has to relevent to the way in which the patient wishes to direct the complaint. Without knowing what someone's expectations are, we're completely blind.

 

If someone says 'I just want it sorting out' then I have to ask what does that mean for you, because my idea of sorting something out might be very different to yours.

 

Knowing what isn't pathetic in the eyes of the patient makes the whole process far more useful because we don't waste time offering unacceptable responses. Perhaps you've already made it very clear what outcome you're seeking, I don't know; but from my side of the desk knowing these things makes it a far less onerous process.

 

 

I was asked when i first complained to the ombudsman what I hoped to achieve from my complaint. my response was simple I wished the nurse to explain to me why she assaulted me in the way she did during the smear test, I was not asking for financial reward.

I have just found out from the practice manager that this nurse is no longer in their employ. I reminded him that did not make the nurse or the practice immune from further action including appealing to the ombudsman. because of what they have put me through these last two years the practice manager and my gp were complicit in hiding the facts, I will leave no stone unturned to get justice.

I have not been able to tell the whole story on this website because of their rules but I have managed to put write the full gory details on several others

Edited by honeybee13
Restoring quote for ease of reading.
Link to post
Share on other sites

i have been emailed by a b.k from p.h.s.o a customer service officer regarding a new complaint well it was part of the old complaint but they decided it was a new complaint and i had to re apply.

in his email with documentation it said if i did not give them details within a week they would close the case.

i phoned this customer service officer he then told me " it is recent new policy that the ombudsman have decided i then emailed him again as i was slightly confused about this new ruling i am still awaiting a response does anyone know when this new ruling came into place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've no idea, Shirli – but as an alleged new policy, it really does take the biscuit, doesn't it.

 

Complaints can be dragged for years, let alone months, by NHS bodies refusing to respond to letters, and refusing to produce information. And when a complaint does finally get looked at by the PHSO, they want to shut it down if the complainant does not yield particular information they then specify within 7 days!

 

Would they be just as determined to find in favour of a complainant if an NHS body didn't produce information specified by the PHSO within 7 days?

 

Please keep posting any details about this (and get anything you can about this supposed 'policy', in writing, perhaps?). I can see the WDTK people wanting to take a further interest in this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've no idea, Shirli – but as an alleged new policy, it really does take the biscuit, doesn't it.

 

Complaints can be dragged for years, let alone months, by NHS bodies refusing to respond to letters, and refusing to produce information. And when a complaint does finally get looked at by the PHSO, they want to shut it down if the complainant does not yield particular information they then specify within 7 days!

 

Would they be just as determined to find in favour of a complainant if an NHS body didn't produce information specified by the PHSO within 7 days?

 

Please keep posting any details about this (and get anything you can about this supposed 'policy', in writing, perhaps?). I can see the WDTK people wanting to take a further interest in this point.

 

 

 

GOOD EVENING nolegion

just opened my email and have been sent at 15.43 my reply from b.k at the p.h.s.o ombudsman and I quote

" as explained currently the office is only giving complainants one week to provide information we need to consider their complaint in more detail " its still unclear to me but make of it what you will

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

a freedom of information was requested regarding private use of internet by the P.H.S.O staff and sites they visited was posted on the " what do they know " website. the answers were very amusing. they basically do not monitor time staff spent on private browsing but a few of the websites visited were apparently how to make illegal drugs from magic mushrooms and coki leaves.

that does explain quite a lot about the P.H.S.O and their staff

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...