4 Sept 2017
26 Oct 2017
8 Nov 2017
10 Nov 2017
13 Dec 2017
21 Dec 2017
23 Jan 2018
24 Jan 2018
28 Jan 2018
5 Feb 2018
7 Feb 2018
15 Feb 2018
22 Mar 2018
22 Mar 2018
27 Mar 2018
12 Apr 2018
12 Apr 2018
16 Apr 2018
18 Apr 2018
22 May 2018
14 Dec 2018
18 Jan 2019
26 Mar 2019
6 Jun 2019
7 Jun 2019
25 June 2019
4 Sept 2019
15 Sept 2019
17 Oct 2019
27 Oct 2019
19 Dec 2019
11 Feb 2020
12 Jun 2020
14 Jun 2020
18-30 Jun 2020
NHS Continuing Healthcare package set up following identification of one priority domain and two severe domains, along with scores in other domains.
Urgent annual review set up. Consent requested and GP views sought. No review took place.
No annual reviews during this period.
Annual review. Care package continued with no amendments.
Annual review. Care package continued with no amendments.
Email received from care agency stating CCG were not enabling flexible payment in accordance with the care package. As a result, they would have to limit the health care support each week.
Following several emails, West Hampshire CCG informed us that a review was required. When questioned, they stated that it was due to the request for more hours. Despite explanations that this was not true, the review was not cancelled.
Review took place. Recommendation of Multi-Disciplinary Team for Decision Support Tool assessment, having failed to follow National Guidelines and West Hampshire CCG policies.
Formal complaint made regarding the process of the review. Additional information sent on 12 Nov 2017.
CCG finally accepted they had to wait until after the complaint is resolved before deciding whether to hold an MDT.
Response received from West Hampshire CCG regarding the formal complaint. New review to be set up due to the failure in processes in the November review.
Second review took place. Different process for the review, making judgements against the Decision Support Tool. Despite agreeing one priority domains and two severe domains (in line with 2009 DST), MDT recommended, in contravention of regulations and policies, due to minor change in another domain. This was confirmed by a senior manager.
E-mail sent to CCG questioning decision for MDT on basis of regulations and policies.
Request for Local Resolution Meeting to clarify issues from first review.
Report from January Review received.
Formal complaint sent due to decision for MDT and changes in the report made after the January Review was concluded.
Local Resolution Meeting for first complaint. Second complaint discussed in format that was contrary to regulations and CCG policy. Informed of outcome to complaint even though investigation should not have started.
Formal written response received from West Hampshire CCG. Informed that local resolution process completed and need to refer to Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman if we want to take it further.
PHSO stated that local resolution process not over if not all points dealt with in accordance with policy.
Reply sent to CCG with questions to clarify points and deal with omissions within the CCG's response.
Response received from CCG denying any faults or data protection issues. CCG stated Multi-Disciplinary Team meeting will occur. CCG consider complaint process closed. We contacted the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman who felt the Local Resolution Process might not be over. PHSO requested written details.
Subject Access Request information for Clinical File and Complaint File received. Expected information missing (e.g. evidence of investigations and written reports of unconsented reviews). Additional evidence of malpractice and lies found within internal emails by CCG.
Letter sent to CCG refuting all aspects of their 12 April 2018 response. Provided additional issues identified through Subject Access Request. We informed CCG that we will report them for ORGANISATIONAL ABUSE if they do not respond appropriately. Further formal complaint to be sent.
Formal Complaint 3 sent to CCG. This time focused on failure to adhere to statutory regulations and local policies for complaints handling.
CCG stated they will respond by 21 May 2018 but failed to contact us in accordance with statutory regulations and local policies. Response eventually received.
Following the response from the CCG, we contacted the Nursing and Midwifery Council, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and Social Services, as we had informed West Hampshire CCG that we would.
With the support of a GDPR expert at Insideout IT Solutions, we submitted a new Subject Access Request to West Hampshire CCG. This sought to obtain answers to some of the questions that the CCG had refused to answer following the response to our February Complaint.
Following receipt of the response to our Subject Access Request, Insideout IT Solutions sent the CCG an email. This stated that we felt that the information disclosed did not provide the information requested. If this is the case, the CCG either doesn't hold the information (including evidence of consent) or has breached Article 15 of GDPR. We also invoked Article 18 (1a), denying CCG processing rights to our data that is disputed. The matter is to be referred to the Information Commissioners Office.
We submitted a fourth complaint to WHCCG, this timing regarding data protection. They continued processing data in contravention of GDPR Article 18 and refused to answer serious questions that came from our subject access request.
Complaint response received from WHCCG, nearly two months late and without our consent for a delay. The response was riddled with factual errors, lies and omissions.
We responded to the CCG but received no response. However, due to other circumstances, we finally were offered a meeting with the Chief Officer (Heather Hauschild) and other board members, including Ellen McNicholas who had been involved in the complaints process.
Meeting held with WHCCG Chief Officer and Board Members. They promised to look into my concerns. Ellen McNicholas and Heather Hauschild kept stating for 45 minutes that the Multi-Disciplinary Team meeting would take place for my wife. It took a GP Board Member, Stuart Ward, to decide to cancel the MDT. (For information, prior to the meeting it was discovered that Heather Hauschild was due to leave WHCCG to take up alternative employment within weeks of the meeting taking place. She would not be involved in the outcome of any new investigation.)
Letter received from Ellen McNicholas. It defended many of the actions of the CCG. It also provided a new reason for the review process taking place - no records of the package as I described it and a recollection that the care agency stating that they only provide driving and cleaning services.
Response to Ellen McNicholas' letter. Her arguments are erroneous and now claiming loss of data and an unevidenced recollection (which the care agency refutes) as a valid legal basis. Provided evidence to CCG of care package from their own records which were obtained through a Subject Access Request.
Following no response from the CCG, sent an open letter.
Response received offering a meeting with new CEO to 'understand the issues'.
Email from Mike Fulford (Deputy Chief Officer) claiming proof that WHCCG did not tamper with documents sent to the PHSO. However, the evidence provided actually proves the opposite!
Meeting held with new CEO, Maggie MacIsaac, and Board Members Peter Bibawy and Stuart Ward. Agreed to consider our concerns which we would narrow to key issues. Also agreed that WHCCG would no longer carry out the CHC reviews for us. This was followed up in writing.
Letters exchanged regarding agreement that WHCCG would no longer be involved in reviews. We highlighted the basis for our consent. However, the issue regarding previous actions were not addressed.
Telephone conversation held between us, Maggie MacIsaac and Peter Bibawy. Agreed in principle to an 'independent' review (CCG would source and pay for an external company to review our complaints). We stated that we want opportunity to challenge the CCG response, ie within a joint meeting with the review company and the CCG.
PROGRESSION OF CASE HALTED DUE TO COVID-19
The same issue that started the whole review process occurred again. Call from care agency saying they were being limited to number of hours they can provide, in contravention of the care package and the law. We informed the CEO.
CEO resolved matter within 48 hours, confirming that we were correct. Care agency now able to bill CCG appropriately for all hours done.
Attempts to agree 'independent' review process. CCG not providing us with opportunity to challenge their defence of the case until after a draft report has been produced. We stated that this is unfair and inequitable. We did not feel it was open, honest or transparent. We submitted request for all documentation (which should already be easily accessible as all matters have allegedly been fully investigated by the CCG) that they will use for the 'independent' review. We stated we would not take part until we receive the information. CCG stated they would do the review without us if required. We informed them that they do not have consent to process information in that manner.