Time now to expand on another lose end whilst we wait for responses from Loraine Darcy of the Healthcare Commission and Stafford Lightman, oracle.
We don't know if we're still waiting for UBHT / University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust to send the papers to the Healthcare Commission. These papers should have arrived by Friday, two days ago, but so far nobody has told us whether or not this has happened.
So - the point to expand on.
When Hari was in hospital I had to tell the doctors about the problems caused by increases in sodium and potassium intake. I also gave them further information, in case it might be useful, but there didn't seem to be any real interest in that either.
The information related to the full extent of the problems with Hari's health which had occurred since September 2003. Since that date our lives had been very different, due to a whole range of health problems which Hari had experienced. We'll go into the finer details of this later, but for now the relevance is that the information was given to the medical team in order to try and assist them in diagnosing the undiagnosed.
I had compiled a list and dated sequence of the problems and stored it on a disc, which was given to John Graham, lesser god, when he came to the ward. He promised that he would look at it.
I bumped into him a couple of times on the stairs and he said that he hadn't looked at it yet - but that he would.
Eventually he came to ward and gave the disc back to me. His sole comment was 'very interesting' which came across as rather patronising. I did ask if it had given them any ideas but the answer was no.
I should have asked if he had actually shown it to 'the boss', or indeed to anyone else at all.
I don't know if he did.
He certainly didn't print off a copy for Hari's notes. We know this because we have since seen and copied Hari's notes - the list was not there.
So, we have given all possible, relevant information to the medical team and the only response was a patronising 'very interesting'.
1 comment:
Uhmmm...,playing catch up here!
So you gave a doctor a set of information to assist them in clinical matters and they failed to record the content in the medical records?
Well if that is the case the Medical Records are inaccurate as per the Access To health Records Act 1990 and The Data Protection Act 1998!
Naughty Naughty Data Controller!
Maybe the GMC should be asked to look at this one as the whole question of clinical care and medical duty is open to investigation! Naughty Doctors... slapped wrists to you all... and as the legal responsibility for ensuring that ALL medical records are correctly kept falls upon the Chief Executive ... he who also has responsibility for administering the Trust Complaints procedures... well it seems that there is a Gross Conflict Of Interest which should also be investigated by The health care Commission... in fact, I believe they are obliged to investigate it!
Tut Tut... naughty doctors... naughty, naughty Chief Executive... an as for the Health Care Commission.... sniffing rats and other unsavoury whiffs. So Nothing New There Then!
January 8, 2009 2:17 PM
(reposted by moderator April 09 after technical changes)
Post a Comment