When Hari was evicted from paediatrics, with no follow up, we assumed that her cardiac outpatients appointment for today ( December 10th 2008) had been cancelled.
Surprisingly, a few weeks ago their computer decided to send us a reminder for this appointment.
So whatever else is happening- the computer says yes!
We realised that whatever we did regarding this appointment, whether we attended or not, we would be wrong. Clearly we would be wrong not to attend but if we attended then no doubt that would also be wrong and somebody would be bound to say so. We really didn't want to travel there only to be turned away.
So the status of the appointment was queried. The physiotherapist contacted Michele Narey who apparently conferred with another manager. The resulting response was that we should attend for this appointment but there would be discussion about transition to the adult hospital.
We have a theory!
Did somebody forget to tell the computer that the appointment was cancelled?
Obviously to tell us not to attend at such a late stage and with no alternative having been arranged, would reflect badly on the trust - although it's a bit late to avoid that reflection really!
So we seem to have been required to jump through hoops yet again, just to protect the image of the trust.
Hari was seen by Beverly Tsai-Goodman, who informed us that she was under strict instructions from management to transfer Hari's cardiac care to the adult hospital. She said that she had guidelines to follow although she did agree that appropriate health care for Hari would be in a paediatric ward.
So this decision rests, not with doctors who have appropriate medical knowledge and experience of Hari but with managers and those who compile the guidelines.
Guidelines, of course, take no account of the individual and fail to consider patient need.
No surprises there then!