Ophthalmologists’ opinion didn’t fit with his own incorrect opinion; so, he made it fit. Later denied it although it’s evidenced in writing in 2nd paragraph of his final clinic letter. Astounded he was allowed to deny it when it is in writing. Guess it happens. Good & bad in h/s
-
-
Replying to @Imonlyslightly @4AdsthePoet and
I don't know your story. I do know that my mistakes have tended to be trying to squeeze round pegs into square holes until something serious gave way or someone else spotted it and got involved. Gets more likely the more senior you become, and the consequences potentially bigger
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ian_rodd @4AdsthePoet and
He also misquoted experts as agreeing with him that WD carriers can have eye changes&18 mths after I was discharged from his clinic suggested in writing I didn’t need to see a Neurologist as recommended-this time misquoting recorded neuro signs as symptoms previously described.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Imonlyslightly @ian_rodd and
John Clarke Retweeted John Clarke
Sorry to hear this - it has a familiar feel to it, sadly. There's obviously a good reason why we now have what looks like a second call for a statutory individual duty of candour from an inquiry, despite a professional & contractual duty already existing.https://twitter.com/c7rky/status/958705170845716481 …
John Clarke added,
John Clarke @C7RKYReplying to @ShaunLinternFirst Francis. Now Justice O'Hara. "The inquiry made 96 recommendations including the establishment of a duty of candour on medical professionals "that would impose a duty to tell patients and their families about major failures in care and to give a full and honest explanation"2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @C7RKY @Imonlyslightly and
I'll follow my MPs when they agree to observe one too and work out to legally introduce and enforce one for us both
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GrumpyOldDoc @Imonlyslightly and
Funny you should say that; a few years back
@willcpowell and I used to speculate that might be the reason it has been persistently resisted for doctors - in case somebody then decided it might be a good idea for MPs too. All the more reason to try from my seat, if so.2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY @Imonlyslightly and
It's legally unenforceable. Proving who knew what and when. Read NI Hyponatraemia enquiry for an example of how after 14 years of investigation no one is still sure of exactly what happened in at least one of the cases
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @GrumpyOldDoc @C7RKY and
I think that serious questions need to be asked about Trust legal teams.
1 reply 3 retweets 4 likes -
-
Replying to @C7RKY @Imonlyslightly and
Or just as much questions about boards which hide behind legal team. "We were just acting on the legal advice."
#coalitionofevil2 replies 4 retweets 5 likes
Legal advice provided in the interests of..? I think we've all worked that one out by now. Little more in appearance than self-preservation at public expense in some cases.
-
-
Replying to @C7RKY @NHSwhistleblowr and
We need culture change so that investigations /legal advice are on behalf of patient/family, rather than to challenge them.
0 replies 2 retweets 4 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.