I'm going to guess (to borrow another common phrase) that the new investigator didn't make any difference to the overall outcome?
I sent PHSO the relevant contemporaneous notes - why did I bother? I focused on police once I grasped the scale of PHSO issues from @phsothefacts.
-
-
Replying to @C7RKY @kateheydonorg and
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
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
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
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 …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY @daisypearldaisy and
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!
2 replies 3 retweets 1 like
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.
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.