I've never wanted anyone to accept my assertions just because I said so. Like many others, I provided evidence. But the PHSO failed to properly investigate that evidence. By all accounts, they are a badly flawed regulator. Among several, sadly.
-
-
catch 22 is need genione credible content expertise and experience in a particular field to do such reviews well but those individuals a) Need dedicated time away from clinical practice to do it b) Will be labelled by some as ipso facto lacking independence because of expertise
-
I can't disagree with any of this. Expertise is unquestionably needed, but suspicion will no doubt remain for some until independence is demonstrated through their actions. And I'll be candid; I'd count myself among that group.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
you could merge all the regulators potentially but the functions they carry out would still be required. PHSO as an arbiter when people are not happy with responses is an important role but need to have sufficient resource to pay for external expert reviews
-
I agree all existing functions would need to remain. But having them under 1 roof would at least prevent future complainants from hearing the dreaded words: 'Not in our remit'. You wouldn't believe what madness this state of affairs currently facilitates.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.