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.
-
-
Replying to @C7RKY @ArrhythmiaStory and
there is a new Ombudsman in charge who clearly wants to improve things. But if they were going to use independent external expert reviewers for every case that makes it to them (a good idea, I'd say) there is a huge resource and time issue and maybe they have neither
5 replies 2 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @mancunianmedic @ArrhythmiaStory and
So I gather. Yet to encounter him personally, but give it time. I could bore you with why our case was so basic it required no indep expertise (good idea tho), but I think this feeds into a larger debate which harks back to the Francis recommendation for a single regulator tbh.
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @C7RKY @ArrhythmiaStory and
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
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes
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.
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.