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