Nasty smells from Dr Diaper

42235544_s (1)

“Mom changing stinky diaper to her little daughter on table, holding the diaper far from her with one hand. She touches her nose and does a grimace for disgust” [Caption at source of image]. © Diego Cervo


Here is a delightfully self-incriminating letter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) from Dr Diaper, then-Caldicott Guardian and Medical Director (Quality!) of Southern Health.

Dr Nappy letter 2016-04-08 003

In order, Dr Diaper:

  • Admits a breach of The Data Protecting Act 1998 (“DPA”) by knowingly contacting the ICO despite that the data subject had withdrawn his consent.
  • Claims to have breached the DPA, “So as not to cause additional distress to” the data subject. Codswallop! Why, in writing to the ICO secretively and refusing to take action, does Dr Diaper not realise that he is not doing exactly the opposite?
  • Implies the data subject accepted £1,000 for compensation in respect of DPA non-compliance. In fact, the data subject accepted it for just two documents Southern Health firstly denied existed and later admitted to have shredded, ‘accidentally’ – not as compensation for other material breaches of the DPA. Of course, it was a pure coincidence that the ‘accidentally’ shredded papers contained key evidence of misconduct by doctors.
  • Implies falsely that a 38-page letter from the data subject is sufficient: the 38-page letter related only to RiO Progress Notes and not to the rest of the data.
  • Forgets that, between 26 January and 5 May 2015, The Department of Health wrote to him on 30 March 2015 with a limited number of examples of missing and inaccurate data relating to the data subject and agreeing with the ICO that Southern Health had not taken all reasonable steps to address the data subject’s concerns.
  • Refuses to act to comply with the DPA, despite the Department of Health’s intervention.
  • Omits to mention that the so-called independent investigator (contrary to written promises) had no legal or medical expertise – and worked on pre-Magna Carta law.
  • Dissembles knowingly in stating the GMC had not upheld a complaint of unlawful detention. The GMC did not uphold or reject it: it is not within the remit of the GMC  mainly because the GMC does not regulate the agent of the state responsible for detention. However, Dr Diaper omits that the opinion of GMC experts effectively means the responsible official did detain the data subject unlawfully.
  • Demonstrates ignorance of the DPA in asserting that Southern Health would not record the data subject’s differing opinions and (incidentally) the opinions of the data subject’s private Consultant Psychiatrist. The 4th Principle of the DPA is explicit: “If the data subject has notified the data controller of the data subject’s view that the data are inaccurate, the data [must] indicate that fact.” Clearly, it is even more important when the data subject’s Consultant’s opinion differs too.
  • Fails to mention the ICO itself had told him that Southern Health is obligated to consider challenges to patient data regardless of any other policies that might be in place.
  • Refuses to comply with the DPA and related advice from the ICO and the Department of Health.

In short, Dr Diaper admits being in serial breach of the DPA and has no intention of complying with the law. He was part of the conspiracy that led to the data subject waiting circa 882 days for his data: the DPA requires disclosure in 40 days.

It was tempting to redact the logos: we left them in for amusement. Southern Health is:

  • Positive about disabled people” – Sara Ryan and many others would disagree.
  • An “Investor in People” – perhaps they should invest in honourable Directors, prepared to accept responsibility when things go wrong.
  • The third logo is indistinct but the image of balanced scales implies fairness and justice – if so they must be joking.


Where is he now?

NHS England’s Head of Patient Safety (Primary Care) – what else?


And, in commenting on the Mazars Review,  Dr Diaper told the BBC:

 “As a result of my efforts, rapid and significant improvements were made in  the way the trust looked at failures in care.”

Words (or at least polite ones) fail me.

And how precisely is patient safety improved and best served by the NHS processing inaccurate and incomplete patient data?

Mystic Lesley

Mystic Lesley

Clinical Director with psychic powers!

Step forward Dr Lesley ‘Slippery’ Stevens, now known also as ‘Mystic Meg Lesley’


This is part of an email exchange between NHS England (Wessex) and Southern Health that led to the joint meeting on 4 February 2014. It is evident now that Southern Health was fearful of meeting and tried every excuse to avoid it.

This is perhaps the most dirty trick of many … and libellous.

Mystic Leslie 2016-03-15 001

The patient had never met or even spoken to Dr Stevens during his four days of unlawful detention by Southern Health or in the subsequent 2 years and 2 months. One of Southern Health’s more competent Consultant Psychiatrists, Dr Roger Palmer, wrote on discharge:

When I reviewed [him] on 12.09.2011, three days after his admission, he did not display any acute psychiatric symptoms. He has been under quite significant ongoing stresses, of which you have been aware. The report from his family suggest that he has been quite excited and overly fixated [redacted for legal reasons] in recent weeks, but there was nothing in their view, or of that at the team at Woodhaven, to suggest this represented a switch in to mania.

Yet apparently Dr Stevens (“Albeit made from more distant observations that [sic] usual”) diagnoses the patient’s conduct: as, “Clinically significant” and describes him as:

“A very vulnerable individual.”

All in an attempt to avoid a meeting: one wonders what gems hide behind the redaction.

This is just an extract from a long email: the rest may feature in a future blog post but one notes from an earlier page the comment of Sue Harriman:

“[The ex-patient] has threatened to report me to the NMC when my relationship is not a clinical one but one as acting CEO (indeed, I had no clinical or leadership role in the mental health service where the incident happened.”

So, Ms ‘Hello Sailor’ Harriman, the NMC Code of Conduct (including the duty of candour) goes out of the window when you get into the dizzy heights (by job title and salary) of directorships! The Code includes, for example:

“You must make sure that any information or advice given is evidence-based. Exercising your professional ‘duty of candour’ and raising concerns immediately whenever you come across situations that put patients or public safety at risk.”

So apparently it is evidence-based to give NHS England the opinion of a medic who has never reviewed or spoken to a patient and it is consistent with her Duty of Candour to dissemble at a meeting with  NHS and Department of Health officials to ‘bury’ incidents that could put other patients at risk.

Harriman also was Acting CEO during the early months after the Connor Sparrowhawk tragedy, where the Duty of Candour [and transparency] seems to have gone AWOL too, along with the Military Code of Honour implicit in anyone who has served our county.

The was an earlier alleged scandal naming Harriman at Fordingbridge Hospital, run by the Hampshire Primary Care Trust, which eventually became Southern Health.  

It is naïve to believe that Registered Nurses in senior roles should be more aware of and act upon all serious ‘near misses’, which could have implications for patient safety – more so than the six (probably) junior nurses who Southern Health allegedly reported to the NMC.

Sue Harriman headshot

Just a reminder!


© Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust

What data security?

Your scribe was surprised to find Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust processing his data – without ever receiving services from Oxford Health!

Charmless 1 2016-03-09 001

Oxford Health 2016-03-09 002

Not half as surprised as Oxford Health’s Health Records Manager Tina ‘Tantrum’ Thomas (“TTT”), who retorted unpleasantly:

“Further to our telephone conversation yesterday, and my subsequent discussions with Dr Julie Chalmers, and Mark Underwood, Head of Information Governance. I can confirm to you that, as a Trust, we have had no involvement with your complaint to Southern Health. Dr Chalmers was undertaking an independent review and was acting in her capacity as Chair of Section 12 Doctors for the strategic Health Authority.

You will need to contact either Southern Health or NHS England with regard to the issues you have raised.

As Health Records Manager for Oxford Health Foundation Trust I am unable to help you with the issues you raised so I would appreciate you not making any further contact with me.”

With Dr Chalmers using Oxford Health’s email address, it is absurd of TTT to claim Oxford Health is not processing patient data – even if the data subject is not their patient and Dr Chalmers is doing work ‘on the side’ using their email address. As a measure of her competence, TTT refers patients to NHS England – the wrong authority for s.12-approved doctors after SHAs were wound up.

The fact is that Dr Chalmers asked all the right questions of Dr McCormack; Dr McC gave all the wrong answers but when this was pointed out to Dr C, she ignored it.

THE SISTERHOOD OF CONSULTANT PSYCHIATRISTS LIVES ON – though no doubt the Brotherhood is no better, save for those (of both gender) working solely in the private sector. This time Dr C and Dr Helen ‘can’t keep a promise’ McCormack – who just happened to be Southern Health’s Caldicott Guardian at the time – responsible for data security – surely not?

How can NHS patients opt-out of automatic data sharing if they don’t know – and could not possibly predict – that a Trust, of which they have no knowledge, is processing their data.

OMG – I’ve just found Dr Julie Chalmers is Specialist Adviser Mental Health Law to the Royal College of Psychiatrists. So the person advising the Royal College on Mental Health Law does not know that detention under the Mental Health Act without lawful justification is a tort of strict liability; accepts the word of cronies without question; and accepts that s.12-approved doctors can lie on section forms in detaining patients. 

The obvious difference between Oxford Health and Southern Health?

With a single call to Oxford Health’s Complaints and PALS team (thanks Alex), your scribe had a direct dial number to Kerry Rogers, Director of Corporate Affairs and Company Secretary – and she picked up without, unlike KP, the army of minders (and Dr Lesley Stevens) to cover her back. Of course, I am sure that this has nothing at all to do with the fact that Kerry has worked in the ‘real world’ – outwith the NHS!

Kerry Rogers – Next CEO of Southern Health?

Would Southern Health risk an Inspector of Taxes and someone who has worked in the ‘real world’ too! The jury is out until she responds!


© Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust

Cathy Larkin’ about

Larkin about

Larkin’ about – a.k.a Cathy Lakin

Complaints & PALS Manager or

Complaints & Cover-up Manager?


Inconsistencies to say the least!

Cathy Larkin' about 2016-03-07 001

On 13 September 2013, the GMC wrote to Lakin telling her that they were happy for her to provide all documentation relating to the patient from 9 September 2011 and that it would be better to have all the documents and then ask an expert to determine their relevance. 

Yet 18 months, later ‘Larkin’ about’ claims she supplied all the documents requested. She did not send the GMC even all related papers, much less “All documents” for the GMC’s experts to review! Moreover, she had written to the GMC on 19 September 2013:

“I have prepared a file of related documents and will send these to you in a few days.”

The GMC still awaits the file of ‘related documents’ 2.5 years later – Southern Health’s idea of a “few days” is strange. Mind you, this is the Trust that works on 12th century (pre-Magna Carta) law and thinks it can section patients who are not mentally ill – perhaps their world moves somewhat slower than the rest of us. 

Allegedly, Southern Health has answered the ICO (on one point) and there is no further action as Lakin understands it.

Lakin omits to mention all the other issues with the patient’s data, over which the Department of Health had intervened and National Audit Office would later intervene because Southern Health ignored the ICO’s advice: they ignored the DoH and NAO too.

‘Larkin’ about’ describes a letter from a patient’s private Consultant as, “Strange“, recalls one to Southern Health and one to the Council and believes there was nothing to answer.

  1. Apparently it is, “Strange” in the NHS for Consultants to support patients, who have been subjected to injustice – although that will not be a surprise to many of us!
  2. There were two letters to the Council, both copied to Southern Health.
  3. The Council responded to the first, patronised the Consultant’s professionalism and then ignored his expertise – the rest was effectively a ‘Dear John’ letter.
  4. Along with an earlier letter from the patient, his second letter trashed the conclusion of Southern Health’s so-called independent investigator. The Council’s response – effectively a, ‘Sod off’ letter.

Of course both letters required a detailed and substantive response, which neither service provider could do: there was no legitimate defence to the points he made.

Instead, Southern Health and the Council (including the Adjudicators) ignored letters from the Consultant and the patient and agreed with the legally untenable conclusions of the so-called investigator, who had no medical or legal expertise at all!

Who needs PALS like that?

And Southern Health’s Adjudicator – one Dr Lesley ‘Slippery’ Stevens, surprise, surprise!

Note to self: publish some direct email addresses soon.

No quality care, when & where you need it



More conspirators!


On 4 February 2014 NHS England (Wessex) facilitated a meeting between:

  1. On the one side, three senior officials from NHS England (Wessex), a senior official from the Department of Health, the CEO of Southampton CCG, a patient’s private responsible medical Consultant and the patient, (for brevity, “the complainants”): complainants’ names redacted in both images.
  2. On the other side, Sue Harriman, Southern Health’s Chief Operating Officer; her ‘minder’ Louise Felice; Dawn Baxendale, Chief Executive of Southampton City Council’s; and her ‘minder’ Carol Binns, (for brevity, “the defendants”). Both ‘minders’ had the word, “Director” in their job titles. ‘Director’ has legal significance: it a key feature to establish corporate misconduct and similar.

Katrina Percy was notable only by her absence: NHS England had invited CEOs but KP went AWOL, as appears to be normal practice.

The meeting identified several areas for the defendants to act upon, exposing the dishonesty in Harriman and Percy asking Deloitte LLP to amend a draft letter to the Department of Health and Southampton CCG in advance of the meeting to give exactly the opposite impression. (See previous post, Deloitterers‘).

The patient provided additional information by email. Yet just eight days after the meeting, before the defendants had responded, Felice effectively ‘binned’ the emails by invoking a persistent and unreasonable complaints, (effectively the ‘we know we’ve lost but want to close him down) policy – known to patients as ‘robust complainant policy’ – in full knowledge of Harriman: moreover she implicitly incites Baxendale to do likewise and tried to draw the Chief Officer of NHS England Wessex into the conspiracy too.

Conspiracy 4 2016-03-04 001b

Subsequently, the defendants reverted to the complainants in writing, inter alia denying that ‘missing’ documents existed. When the patient complained, Felice not only re-invoked the robust complainant policy but, in a deliberate attempt to blacken the patient’s reputation, also sent an email to Baxendale suggesting she forwarded it to the Local Government Ombudsman.

Conspirators 2 2016-03-04 001a

What a snide and dirty little stunt!

Despite this, the truth eventually was out: SHNFT admitted to ‘accidentally’ destroying two key documents containing evidence of professional misconduct – unlawful detention and assault, causing actual bodily harm to a seizure/suspected stroke patient.

It cost Southern Health £1,000 in compensation (which did nothing to restore the evidence for the General Medical Council and others).

Astonishingly, but perhaps unsurprisingly at £500 per missing page, Southern Health (in the same letter from Harriman) restated the robust complainant policy to continue to deny the data subject access to his data for a further two years, despite advice from several official authorities that this was improper conduct.

Clearly the ‘Quality care, when and where you need it’ strapline does not apply to robust complainants, victims identified in the Mazars Review  and elsewhere. And especially if the patient produced at the Bored Meeting on 26 January 2016 is the best example of ‘quality and care, when and where you need it’ that Southern Health can find – another publicity stunt that back-fired spectacularly [details confidential].

Note to self: must do a post on Baxendale sometime.