1/2 The second PHSO investigator 'sent me something flawed' in an e-mail - can't remember exactly what offhand. I pointed that out, and my complaint moved up to the Ombudsman (well - Ombudswoman) personally to deal with. What baffled me about the 1st person, was she asked me to
-
-
Replying to @MikeStone2_EoL @C7RKY and
2/2 'better describe my issues' as a list, so I VERY CAREFULLY did that - then without telling me, instead of sending my own wording to the PCT, the PHSO woman changed my carefully-written wording to her own [flawed] version and sent that to the PHSO 'as my complaint'!
2 replies 3 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MikeStone2_EoL @phsothefacts and
This is typical behaviour of Ombudsman investigators. We have MANY examples of it. A reason why PHSO should not be allowed to take 'telephone complaints' as they wish to do. Their ability to summarise complaints is seriously flawed,
2 replies 2 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @daisypearldaisy @phsothefacts and
1/2 What PHSO woman did was ask me to formulate my concerns as a list. I wrote my list, but I carefully structured my wording, to 'embed the links between issues - so 'if then ... so either or ...'. The PHSO woman reworded my 'complaint' so that it seemed to be several different
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @MikeStone2_EoL @daisypearldaisy and
2/2 'issues', not 'a web of interlinked problems' [which my own wording made it perfectly clear, was the case].
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @MikeStone2_EoL @phsothefacts and
It's the PHSO 'house style' - characterised by imprecisely summarising the 'complainant's' carefully crafted complaint so it means something other. You then have to write another letter to unpick it They've kept me at it for seven years.
1 reply 3 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @daisypearldaisy @phsothefacts and
7 years and you still think there is a point to continuing? I decided the PHSO was going to serve no useful purpose within a year.
3 replies 3 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @MikeStone2_EoL @daisypearldaisy and
Everyone realises that eventually. The intelligent people go straight to a lawyer, sadly. Whereas Learning, without blame, shouldn't have to be a confrontational system: the last thing that a damaged, recuperating person, or a bereaved family, need is to have to fight for help.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @kateheydonorg @MikeStone2_EoL and
So if you don't have any money for a lawyer you must be unintelligent? Sad fact is, Kate, No Win No Fee means 'he who pays the piper calls the tune' and it's the insurers who have control of your case, not you. We 'won' clinical neg but it brought no facts to light whatsoever.
4 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @daisypearldaisy @kateheydonorg and
I was never after 'damages' or anything 'personal': my objective was always to get things such as guidance/protocols changed, so I 'moved on' to other methods of trying to do that. If it had still been 'personal' then I fully understand your 'lawyers cost money' point!
4 replies 1 retweet 1 like
John Clarke Retweeted John Clarke
It's not just about us trying to get money, but nw/nf arrangements can be used as a means of avoiding cases getting to court which might lead to awareness / acceptance of the need to change the guidance & protocols in the way you'd like.https://twitter.com/c7rky/status/936918122438651909 …
John Clarke added,
-
-
Replying to @C7RKY @daisypearldaisy and
I do think there is an issue - re the MCA - with the fact that some of the cases which might 'make the law clearer' will never get to court, so there will never be a relevant court ruling: for example http://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.i26/rr-16 … and that 'while applying' wording.
0 replies 1 retweet 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.