Whilst we're still waiting for the report from the Healthcare Commission to be completed we should continue to ponder other relevant points.
A little missive exists which raises cause for concern.
Within this missive, which originates from within the rambling bureaucracy of UBHT/ University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, it clearly states that copies of complaint correspondence going back over a number of years have been removed (by the sender) from Hari's medical notes.
Now then, we could understand these items being copied for the purpose of being included in the documents being sent to the Healthcare Commission but to REMOVE them?
This sounds rather strange!
Nothing should be deliberately REMOVED from Hari's medical notes.
Were UBHT/ University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust deliberately attempting to conceal from the Healthcare Commission the fact that we have had cause to complain in the past? Cause for serious complaint!
Never mind - we have our own copies!
Still no cigars then!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1 comment:
How bizarre!
The NHS complaints procedures have been very clear... I mean Totally Clear.... CRYSTAL..... Legislation, Policy Documents and Procedural Documents, …. I mean It's so clear they wrote it out loads of times for total; idiots in the NHS to grasp … including in the well Published Guide “NHS Complaints Procedure for Dummies”..... that there is a clear separation between any documents relating to a complaint and a patients medical records. The TWO are never mixed up.... NEVER!
… well, maybe not Quite Never!
There is a situation where reference to a Complaint can be and even must be made within Medical Records... and that has nothing to do with the Law On Complaints... It's Covered by The Access To Health Records Act and the provision to correct inaccurate health records!
Where a complaint is upheld and identifies that medical records are inaccurate – well these records have to be corrected for Patient Safety!
Where a complaint is not upheld, but the complaint states that the records are inaccurate – well the records have to be annotated to identify that the patient is of the opinion that the records are inaccurate and why, and to address issues around Patient Safety!
Uhmmmm... so the now altered records... did they say that the Trust had decided that their records were inaccurate??? ... or did they say that the patient said they were inaccurate???.... and I bet that one is like the location of Shergar... only those who did the Dastardly deed will know!
Either way, such a correction of medical records may not be removed, expect under court order or due to the Death of the patient! It does seem that some Doctors oare of the God Like View that if they jump up and down, stamp their feet and gnash their teeth this will cause managers to alter medical records... but as we all know such childish and unprofessional conduct may never be used as an excuse to allow the Alteration of documents which are in Fact the Property of The Sec State For Health!
There has been a developing naughty habit within Trusts and other record Holders to CLAIM that they are obliged to remove such corrections under the Data Protection Act, following Government Instructions to reduce the levels of Data held to only that which is absolutely necessary! It seems that there is wilful misunderstanding of both the LAW and Government instructions so that many inconvenient Truths can be made to vanish from The Trusts Own Records and archives! It seem that Trust will claim that it is oh so necessary for things to vanish!
The question is necessary to who? Necessary to be removed to protect the Record Holder from being told they are Naughty?
Lets see. The Chief Exec is responsible for both Complaints Procedure and Medical Records, so if the entries have been made due to a lack of application under the Complaints Procedures, well that indicates that the Chief Exec has been less than Duly Diligent in either application of Complainst procedures – record management or even both!
As the Medical Records are the legal responsibility of the Chief Exec, if it has proved necessary to have the Records corrected under The Access To Health records Act.. well any alteration of the records there after is the responsibility of the Chief Exec, so he carries the can if he has been less than diligent in ensuring that any alteration is done in line with Policy, Practice,Procedure and Legal Duty!
As The Trust is obliged by law To be A Registered Data Controller under the Data protection Act 1998 – well the legal responsibility of Data Controller is invested in The Chief Exec. If the Chief exec has been less than duly diligent in ensuring that the Data Protection act is used correctly and not misused... well he has that burden on his shoulders too!
I think that the person who has to explain these odd discrepancies within medical records and the associated References to Complaints might just be the Cleaner In The Lobby!
I would not expect the Chief Exec to be either capable or willing to explain.... but as the Cleaner in the Lobby also cleans out the waste paper bins in the executive offices... well they will know where all the Dirt is... and just what is needed to clean it all out!
February 3, 2009 11:24 AM
(reposted by moderator April 09 after technical changes)
Post a Comment