July 2015

Apr 2017

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

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.

This site was designed with the
website builder. Create your website today.
Start Now