Secrets Revealed!

When we had re-submitted the complaint to the Healthcare Commission, after the first attempt at local resolution, we had requested that we were sent copies of communications between the Healthcare Commission and Anne Berry/other agencies.

We had made this request due to concerns regarding Anne Berry's claim that the Healthcare Commission had requested that we were referred to Social Services/Adult Protection.

The Healthcare Commission decided that this should be treated as a request under the Freedom of Information Act and sent it to their Information Access Department.

Initially the Information Access Department denied that there had been any correspondence between the Healthcare Commission and Anne Berry/other agencies '...in respect of your complaint concerning the trust.'

As a result of this denial we had to use the appeals procedure, stressing that we already knew that communication had occurred and reiterating that our request referred not to the complaint itself but to the Adult Protection issues.

On October 30th 2008, the Information Access Department at the Healthcare Commission sent us some copies of internal e-mails and a 'cause for concern sheet'. The e-mails had been copied to Anne Berry.

The e-mails confirm that there had been discussion with Anne Berry, regarding adult protection issues.

However, one e-mail states:

'...I have explained to Anne that you will probably be keen to separate the complaint from the trust's healthcare management, so as to maintain the Commission's impartiality in dealing with the complaint.' The e-mail goes on to suggest that the recipient should have a phone conversation with Anne Berry.

Two days later another e-mail states: '...we are not in a position to advise on what action the trust's safeguarding lead should take, as this is outside both our remit and expertise.'

So - could we safely assume that the Healthcare Commission was completely impartial and had not asked Anne Berry to make a referral to Social Services/Adult Protection?

There was no inclusion in the information of details of the phone calls that had taken place, although we had asked for this information.

That leaves the 'Cause For Concern Sheet'.

On May 1st 2008, prior to the internal e-mails which we had been sent copies of, a 'Cause For Concern Sheet' had been filled out by Clare Gasher, Complaints Case Manager.

Apparently taking her information from the documents available to her, Clare Gasher seems to have ignored the content of our complaint; giving regard only to the contents of Graham Rich's response to our original complaint to UBHT/University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust.

Throughout the 'Cause For Concern Sheet' she refers repeatedly to all fault of the situation being mine. She falsely states, more than once, that I am the one refusing Hari medical care! She repeats false allegations from the trust regarding low calorie and sodium intake and the nutritional feeds, whilst making no mention of the problems and pain that these feeds cause. In fact NOWHERE in this sheet does Clare Gasher mention the need for diagnosis, that I have repeatedly requested but which has been repeatedly refused by the trust.

Again the inaccuracy that attributes learning disabilities to Hari is included.

I am informed that this form was completed following the occurrence of an enquiry from the Healthcare Commission to the trust, in order to ascertain whether or not a referral to Adult Services had been made.

Two serious points are immediately apparent.

Firstly, that Clare Gasher, a Complaints Case Manager at the Healthcare Commission, has seen fit to fill out a 'Cause For Concern Sheet' without accurately ascertaining the true facts of the matter and whilst ignoring Hari's need for diagnosis of the undiagnosed.

Secondly, that as early as May 2008, Clare Gasher, a Complaints Case Manager, had already reached her conclusions on all the issues involved. She had done this within two weeks of the complaint arriving at the Healthcare Commission, without any further investigation, without seeing Hari's notes, without seeing the complaint file held by the trust and without seeking independent medical advice.

So much for impartiality!!!

We are obviously concerned that the existence of this sheet and its contents, will prevent our complaint from being reviewed in a fair and independent manner. We are also concerned that decisions had been made as far back as May 2008 and that all subsequent events and procedures have been no more than a time wasting pretence.