Yes, I borrowed the phrasing to make the point. Like you, I've had similar with PHSO, despite investigator being a nice chap. They just defer to whatever the trust tells them. Failed to use powers to seize original records in our case, yet determined no evidence of amendment?!
The fact that PHSO serve no useful purpose is a conclusion we all reach quite quickly. Unlike most of us though, Maggie & her sister have done a great job of publicly highlighting their shortcomings: http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/public-administration-and-constitutional-affairs-committee/parliamentary-and-health-service-ombudsman-scrutiny-201617/written/74286.pdf …
-
-
The PHSO does have at least one 'use' - from memory, the PHSO has revealed that about 40% of the complaints it receives, involve Trusts not responding properly to concerns/complaints - if we could get the Trusts to respond snsibly, there would be less need for the PHSO!
-
That's a telling stat in itself. But it's also the reason why the trust will never be the right people to investigate serious concerns raised against itself. Needs an element of independence.
End of conversation
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.