Letters of Complaint

Throughout the review process for Continuing Healthcare that was started in October 2017, there have been over one hundred communications between ourselves and West Hampshire CCG up to March 2018. This has been necessary due to the challenges that we have faced.

In order to help others to be prepared for challenges that may be faced, copies of the complaints and responses received can be found below. As we recorded the meetings, we are confident that the information we have provided is accurate.

At this time, the complaint is on-going and we have yet to receive a response to our most recent correspondence. It will be posted here once we have received it. 

The responses that we received so far have to be read very carefully. In our view, they are inaccurate, have omissions and are deliberately misleading in order to conceal the true motives of the CCG. Despite this, due to our morals, we have removed the names of individuals from the documents below.

FIRST FORMAL COMPLAINT FOLLOWING CHC REVIEW IN NOVEMBER - 10 NOV 2017

Our first complaint was about the process of the first review. It went against the National Framework and the Case Coordinator changed the outcome. Having accepted that there was a Primary Health Need, he wanted to discuss reducing the amount of care. We said we would appeal any reduction. The Case Coordinator then changed his mind by saying he felt there might not be a Primary Health Need and would therefore call a Multi-Disciplinary Meeting.

Despite the complaint, the CCG wanted to carry on with the MDT. We refused and eventually the CCG conceded, accepting they needed to wait until after the complaint was resolved.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE FIRST COMPLAINT - 12 NOV 2017

Having been in a hurry to get the complaint in, we then realised other significant points that needed to be raised. This information was provided two days later and was accepted by the West Hampshire CCG as additional points.

CONCERNS ABOUT THE REPORT FROM THE FIRST REVIEW - 10 DEC 2017

We requested a copy of the review report several times. We received it about a month after the review and were shocked by its contents. We immediately responded to the CCG about it. However, with the complaint about the process being on-going we didn't feel the need to press hard on the point as we anticipated the review would be annulled.

WEST HAMPSHIRE CCG's RESPONSE LETTER TO THE FORMAL COMPLAINT - 21 DEC 2017

The response contained multiple apologies and offered a new review.

QUESTION FOLLOWING SECOND REVIEW - 24 JAN 2018

Despite the National Framework, West Hampshire CCG's Joint Operational Policy and the response to our first complaint, the outcome of the second review was contrary to process. One priority domain and two severe domains were identified but it still resulted in an MDT. As a result, we questioned the decision.

We sent a couple of follow up emails to obtain a response. No response was received for two weeks. We converted the question into part of our second formal complaint.

FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS TO RESPONSE FROM FIRST COMPLAINT - 28 JAN 2018

Having considered what happened in the second review, we revisited the outcome of the first complaint. This raised several issues requiring clarifications and answers.

The CCG offered a meeting on 15 February 2018 as a Local Resolution Meeting. This was accepted.

SECOND FORMAL COMPLAINT - 7 FEB 2018

This complaint focused on issues within the written report and the process that led to the outcome of MDT. A key issue from the report was additions made to the report after the review.

LOCAL RESOLUTION MEETING - 15 FEB 2018

In our view, this meeting was disgraceful. Going against national regulations and local policy, the outcome of our second complaint was determined prior to the meeting and without any discussion about the investigative process with us.

We were informed that we would receive a formal response by 14 March 2018. On 13 March 2018, we were asked if we would agree to an extension to the timescale of two weeks. We replied, "No." This was disregarded.

LETTER TO THE CHIEF OFFICER OF WEST HAMPSHIRE CCG - 15 FEB 2018

We felt that the Local Review Meeting demonstrated serious failings in the complaints process. We sent a confidential letter to the Chief Officer. We received correspondence the following day, from the Complaints Manager dealing with our case, that the matters raised with be addressed in the CCG's response.

WEST HAMPSHIRE CCG's RESPONSE LETTER TO FOLLOW UP TO FIRST COMPLAINT AND SECOND COMPLAINT - 21 MAR 2018

Whilst we had been informed in the meeting that the outcome was going to be an MDT, we were still surprised by the content of the response. With further omissions, carefully worded sections, contradictions and some very surprising decisions, this response needs to be considered with the five documents that follow.

HOLDING LETTER FOR OUR REPLY TO THE CCG's RESPONSE - 22 MAR 2018

We knew that it would take time to consider fully our reply to the CCG's response but we wanted to make sure they knew that something was to come in order to prevent the MDT being scheduled.

COVERING LETTER TO OUR REPLY TO CCG's RESPONSE - 27 MAR 2018

Knowing that there were a lot of unresolved issues, we summarised the key points as we view them. We provided a deadline before we sent information to interested parties and stated we would report all relevant staff to regulatory bodies if we did not get an appropriate response to our questions.

The letter and questions were sent via email to the Chief Officer, Chair of the CCG, Chair of the Clinical Governance Committee, The Director of Quality and Nursing, and the Head of Continuing Healthcare.

UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS FROM THE CCG's RESPONSE - 27 MAR 2018

There were a significant number of questions but it followed advice from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. The PHSO will not investigate until the formal complaints process has been followed correctly.

APPENDICES TO OUR UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS - 27 MAR 2018

To ensure that West Hampshire CCG knew that we have a good understanding of the regulations and policies that underpin the CHC process, we included appendices that highlighted key points from appropriate national and local documents.

COVERING NOTE FOR HAND DELIVERED DOCUMENTS - 29 MAR 2018

The questions were sent to an administrator (and copied to the Head of Continuing Healthcare) to be forwarded to the relevant people. It was requested that it be confirmed that it had been passed on. The only confirmation we received was that it was sent to the Head of Continuing Healthcare. Therefore we hand delivered paper copies with an additional note.

RESPONSE FROM WHCCG - 12 APR 2018

West Hampshire CCG chose not to answer the questions submitted. Instead, they stated that they had applied their processes correctly and the appropriate decisions had been made. As a result of this response and as indicated in our letter of 27 March 2018, we reported three nurses involved in this case to the Nursing and Midwifery Council. We also reported the CCG to the Information Commissioner's Office. We will provide updates to these as appropriate.

OUR REPLY TO WHCCG - 16 APR 2018

Every aspect of WHCCG's response was challenged with evidence to back it up. The proof included lies told by employees of WHCCG. We stated that we would report the CCG for ORGANISATIONAL ABUSE unless we received a satisfactory response.

FORMAL COMPLAINT 3 - 18 APR 2018

As stated in our previous letter, we submitted a third complaint regarding the failure to adhere to complaints regulations and processes. The complaint stated that the CCG will be reported for ORGANISATIONAL ABUSE OF A VULNERABLE ADULT if they do not respond appropriately. Contrary to regulations and policy, the CCG has failed to contact us to discuss the complaint.

RESPONSE FROM WHCCG - 22 MAY 2018

The CCG, having failed to adhere to their own timeline and failed to inform us of delays, decided to ignore their own processes again. They refused to look into our third formal complaint and simply restated, after five weeks, that we needed to refer the case to the ombudsman. They also stated that an MDT will take place in 6 months time. We reported a fourth nurse to the NMC.

SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST - 14 DEC 2018

Following the response from the CCG to our second complaint in February 2018, we felt that there were many faults within their findings. Therefore, we submitted a range of questions to obtain the a full response to our complaint. The CCG refused to answer the questions. This Subject Access Request attempted to obtain answers to some of those questions.

EMAIL TO CCG - GDPR ARTICLE 15 AND 18 - 18 JANUARY 2019

Following the response to our Subject Access Request, we felt that the information provided did not fulfil the information requested. As such, an email was sent to the CCG informing them that we would report to the Information Commissioners Office a potential breach of Article 15 and invoke Article 18 - prevention of processing of disputed data.

Please reload

CONTACT US FOR CAMPAIGN ENQUIRIES OR TO SHARE YOUR STORY WITH US
CHCINHAMPSHIRE@GMAIL.COM