Home > Publications > Selected Cases - Health >
Selected Investigations Completed April - September 1997 > Part II, Case no. E.0515/96-97
Matters considered: Failure by the convener to respond to the complainant's request within the time limit set down in national guidance
Complaint against: The Whittington Hospital NHS Trust, London
Complaint as put by complainant
1. The account of the complaint provided by the complainant was that he regularly attended a clinic at The Whittington Hospital (the hospital) for anticoagulant blood monitoring tests, but on 22 April 1996 the clinic told him that he was to have no more appointments. On the same day he wrote to the chief executive of The Whittington Hospital NHS Trust (the Trust), expressing his concerns about that and asking for arrangements for his blood monitoring tests to be reinstated. In her reply of 17 May the chief executive said that the clinic had understood that the complainant was going on holiday and on his return would attend his general practitioner (GP) for anticoagulant treatment. The complainant replied on 4 June that that information was not correct and repeated his request for arrangements for the tests to be reinstated. Having received no reply to that letter, the complainant wrote again to the chief executive on 1 and 8 July. The chief executive replied on 16 July; but the complainant remained dissatisfied.
2. On 12 August the complainant asked the chief executive to refer his complaint to the Trust's convener to be considered for review by an independent panel. On 6 October, in response to a request which the chief executive had sent him on 2 September, the complainant provided a written statement of his outstanding concerns. On 11 October the Trust wrote that his complaint would be referred to the convener. On 10 January 1997 the complainant wrote again to the chief executive because he had heard nothing further from the Trust. He received no reply.
3. The complaint investigated was that the convener did not respond to the complainant's request for an independent review panel (IRP) within the twenty working days set down in national guidance.
Back to top
Investigation
4. The statement of complaint for this investigation was issued on 14 March 1997. My staff obtained the Trust's comments, studied relevant documents, and interviewed staff and two non-executive directors of the Trust. Information was also obtained from the North Thames Regional Office of the NHS Executive. The complainant's complaint was one of four I received in a few months about delays by the Trust in responding to requests to set up IRPs. My deputy had written to the chief executive of the Trust on 4 and 15 November 1996 seeking comments on two of those complaints; but the chief executive did not reply until my deputy wrote again on 31 January 1997 that it was proposed to investigate a third complaint. When my staff later sought the Trust's comments on this complaint they asked for information about the Trust's action on all requests for IRPs which it had received. That information is summarised at Annex A to this report. Annex B summarises the correspondence between the complainant and the Trust about his request for an IRP. I have not put into this report every detail investigated; but I am satisfied that no matter of significance has been overlooked. Soon after I began my investigation I learned with regret that the complainant had died. At the request of the complainant's son, I now make my report to him.
Back to top
National guidance
5. On 1 April 1996 new national procedures for the handling of complaints in the NHS were introduced. In March 1996 the NHS Executive produced guidance on the implementation of the new procedures in a booklet entitled 'Complaints, Listening ... Acting ... Improving'. The guidance states that a person who is dissatisfied with a trust's response to a complaint may refer a request for an IRP to the convener. Trusts must appoint at least one person to act in the role of convener and at least one of the persons appointed must be a non-executive director of the Trust who '.... should be fully appraised of guidance and issues relating to the role of the convener....' . The function of the convener is stated as being 'to ascertain whether all opportunities for satisfying the complainant during Local Resolution have been explored and fully exhausted and what issues, if any, could be referred to a panel .... It is not the convener's role to try and resolve the complaint on his/her own'. The guidance states that '.... the period required for a decision to be made as to whether to convene an Independent Review panel should not normally exceed four weeks (ie twenty working days) from the date of the complainant's initial request being received by the convener ....'. Before making a decision the convener is to consult an independent lay chairman drawn from a list held by the regional office of the NHS Executive.
Local arrangements
6. In March 1996 the Trust appointed a non-executive director to act as convener. In this report I refer to her as the first convener. In November 1996 another non-executive director was appointed as deputy convener. In May 1997 the deputy convener was appointed as the convener to the Trust. In this report I refer to him as the second convener.
Back to top
Evidence of the complainant
7. In putting his complaint to me on 22 January 1997 the complainant wrote that it had been well over three months since he had asked for his complaint to be referred to the first convener, and that on 11 December he had 'personally delivered a further letter addressed to the chief executive asking the date the convener had been given the relevant correspondence. This enquiry was not answered .... I can only assume that .... the complaints officer has not in fact transferred the correspondence to the convener .... This is indefensible and in no way respects the procedure .... to be followed'. On 12 March the complainant told a member of my staff that he had received no correspondence from the Trust since their complaints officer's letter of 11 October 1996 (see Annex B).
Evidence of Trust staff
8. The complaints officer told my staff that she had been in post since 1 March 1996. Until January 1997 her manager was the Trust's press and communications officer (the press officer). From then she reported to the risk manager. She estimated that she dealt with an average of 30 complaints a month. She had also dealt with all complaints involving litigation and had been secretary to the Trust's ethics committee, which met every two months. Additionally, from mid September 1996 she had provided weekly complaints monitoring reports for the chief executive. (Commissioner's note: Copies of monitoring reports which I have seen, covering December 1996, contain no reference to the complainant's complaint. The chief executive told me that was because those reports gave a weekly update of action taken during the previous week.) The complaints officer said that she provided administrative support to the first convener; but she had received no written instructions on what that should involve. When the new procedures were introduced she asked to meet the first convener to discuss how they would work together but the first convener did not respond to that request. The complaints officer felt the first convener tried to involve her in more work at the convening stage than was appropriate. The press officer became involved in the complaints officer's work for the convener only when the complaints officer was on sick leave for two weeks in August 1996. When the risk manager was appointed in January 1997 he took over the litigation work and the work for the convener. Shortly after taking up post the complaints officer asked the press officer for administrative support to deal with the extra work which would be generated by the new complaints procedure. At that time and four months later, she was told that a part-time assistant would be appointed; but that did not happen. A volunteer worked for her from the beginning of September 1996 until the end of March 1997, but he was able to carry out only a limited number of tasks. He had been on leave for the whole of December.
Back to top
9. The complaints officer said that in May or June 1996 she received a number of calls from complainants who had asked for IRPs but had heard nothing from the first convener. The complaints officer tried to find out what was happening with those cases, but had difficulty in doing so because the first convener was often abroad and was very slow in responding to the faxes and answerphone messages which she sent her. The complaints officer told the press officer about the problems she was experiencing. She believed that the press officer passed on her concerns to her manager (the director of human resources and corporate affairs (the corporate affairs director)) and to the chief executive. The complaints officer said that because of those experiences, she had anticipated that the first convener would not respond to the complainant's request for an IRP. That was why when she wrote on 11 October (see Annex B) to inform him that his complaint had been sent to the first convener she also offered him a meeting to try to resolve his complaint locally. Because of her heavy workload and because the complainant had written frequently beforehand, she did not contact him for a decision, assuming that he would reply to her. She saw the complainant's letter of 11 December (paragraph 7), but did not have time to acknowledge it. Also, at that point she was unsure whether the case was being dealt with by the first or the second convener. She thought she might have brought that letter to the press officer's attention, but was not sure. She subsequently drafted the letter which the chief executive sent to the complainant on 10 January 1997 (Annex B). She also copied the complainant's complaint file to the first convener in January 1997 because in the past the first convener had complained that she was not receiving copies of complaints. The complaints officer was quite certain that the first convener never asked her to take any action on the complainant's complaint (see paragraph 12).
Back to top
10. The complaints officer said that she accepted that the complainant's request for an IRP had been poorly handled. She did not know why the request was not mentioned in the monitoring reports to the chief executive for December 1996 (paragraph 8). She felt she could have dealt with the case more efficiently if she had been provided with full-time administrative support. As to the delays in the convening process generally, she considered that the Trust had failed to anticipate how much additional work the new complaints procedure introduced in April 1996 would generate. She had seen my deputy's letters to the chief executive of 4 and 15 November (paragraph 4), but had not felt she was in a position to draft replies and had passed them to the press officer for action.
11. The first convener told my staff that she had been a non-executive director of the Trust since 1992. She chaired the hospital's complaints committee, and had also dealt with complaints in other organisations. When the Trust had to appoint a convener for the new procedure she considered that she was the logical person to take on the role. She had been quite clear what the role involved and had foreseen no problems with that, despite her heavy work commitments. She worked abroad at least two days a week but could be contacted by fax; as far as she was aware, there had been no problem in Trust staff being able to communicate with her. She had attended a half-day training course when the new complaints procedure was introduced. At that time she had expressed concerns about the timescales for implementing the procedure, which she felt would be impossible to achieve. Before she took up the convener post she had understood that she would have one full-time and one part-time member of staff to support her. However, the part-time person had been redeployed elsewhere in the Trust; and she had subsequently realised that the complaints officer, who was to be the full-time person, had other work besides. She had then asked for additional support, which she was given in January 1997 in the form of the risk manager. The first convener had been ill from early September to early December 1996 and had been in hospital from 22 September until 2 October. The Trust had been aware of that, but as far as she was aware had not made arrangements for cases to be dealt with in her absence.
Back to top
12. The first convener said that she received the complainant's complaint in October 1996, and subsequently asked the complaints officer to contact the anti-coagulant clinic to ask why it had been decided to stop treating the complainant, and to find out whether the complainant's GP was able to provide anti-coagulant treatment. She had also expected the complainant to respond to the offer of a meeting, and the complaints officer to remind him to reply if he did not do so. She wanted to try to resolve the complaint locally because she did not consider there was enough substance in it to warrant convening a panel. She sometimes found it helpful when dealing with a complaint to pursue the local resolution process together with the process leading to an independent review. She said that the complainant's complaint then 'fell through the crack' because although she meant to follow it up with the complaints officer, she became involved in three other complaints about infants, which she regarded as more serious.
13. Around the end of November 1996 the Trust's chairman told her that she was worried about the delays in the convening process and that pressure was being put on her because of the situation. The first convener thought she had told her that she was not responsible for the delays which had been caused by difficulties in arranging meetings with lay panel chairmen and arranging convenient dates for IRPs. She recalled that the chairman also told her about the letters from my deputy in November (paragraph 4), although she did not know what action had been taken. She thought it was at this time that the Trust decided to appoint the second convener to alleviate the delays. She said that they had now exchanged roles; and she had become the deputy convener while he was in the role full-time. She considered that the Trust had failed to appreciate how time-consuming the new complaints procedure would be and because of that had provided an inadequate number of staff to implement it. She accepted that she had mishandled the complainant's request for an independent review and apologised for that.
14. The first convener thought she might have asked for the complainant's complaint file to be copied to her again in January (paragraph 9) because she had stored away the file originally sent to her when tidying up her papers some time beforehand. Later in the month she passed the complaint to the second convener for further action because she was to be away for the month of February, as she was every year. She said she was aware that the complainant should have received a response to his request for an IRP within 20 working days of receiving his letter of 11 October, but felt the matter had been out of her hands as she had been waiting for information from the anti-coagulant clinic. More generally, it was often difficult to set up a consultation with an independent lay chairman within 20 days and to find people to take part in an IRP, which she would often try to start arranging immediately on receiving a request.
Back to top
15. The second convener said he was approached in November 1996 to help the first convener clear a backlog of complaints. Because of the first convener's work commitments abroad he was later asked to take on the role full-time. As far as he was concerned, he alone was now dealing with the convening work. He was giving it priority until the backlog of complaints was cleared. He foresaw no difficulties in fitting in the work with his other commitments. He had not yet attended a convener training course, but thought he might be able to do so in the autumn. He considered that before the risk manager's appointment there had been no one with the seniority necessary to take overall responsibility for complaints. He still felt the complaints office was under-staffed. He had spoken to the chief executive informally on a few occasions about the need for more staff. He had taken on the complainant's complaint in February 1997, and decided to set up an IRP. (Commissioner's note: The Trust told my staff that the second convener's decision to set up an IRP was made on 13 March. Arrangements for the IRP had been 'about to commence' when the Trust received my Office's letter of 14 March notifying the decision to investigate the complainant's complaint. The complainant died on 10 April.) The second convener said that he had not consulted a lay chairman before reaching his decision because he felt that would have involved further unacceptable delay. He was now aware that it was a requirement of the national guidance that he should consult a lay chairman. He hoped that as he and Trust staff gained more experience in handling requests for IRPs the whole process would be handled more expertly in the future.
16. The press officer said that complaints had been only a small part of her responsibilities, taking up between 5 per cent and 10 per cent of her time. She met the complaints officer fortnightly to discuss her work in general, but did not discuss specific complaints unless the complaints officer told her there was a problem. She had not monitored how complaints were progressing. She became fully involved in complaints only when the complaints officer was away, and it was only when the complaints officer took sick leave in August 1996 that she realised that she was not coping with her workload. She recalled that the complaints officer had told her beforehand that she was feeling overwhelmed by her work, but she had not asked for help. The press officer said that she recalled being told about the letters from my deputy in November 1996 (paragraph 4), but did not know what action had been taken to reply to them. The complaints officer had not shown her the complainant's letter of 11 December, and the press officer did not know why no reply was sent. She had been away in January 1997 when the complainant had written again.
Back to top
17. The press officer said she had been involved in the discussions which led to the appointment of the first convener (paragraph 6). She had had reservations about her suitability because she was aware that in the past the Trust had sometimes found her difficult to contact due to her heavy work commitments abroad. She was not aware that any estimate had been made of how much time the convener would need to give to complaints. With hindsight, that should have been done. She remembered expressing concerns to the chief executive around August 1996 about the delays in the convening process. She thought that the chief executive had informed the chairman of the Trust of her concerns. She recalled that the first convener had complained at one point that she had not received papers about some complaints. However, the press officer was confident that the complaints officer had sent them to her.
18. The risk manager said that his post was a new one when he took it up in January 1997. Part of his role was to oversee the handling of complaints and to organise work in connection with IRP requests and to support the convener. His first priorities had been to tackle the complaints awaiting decisions on IRPs and to deal with a backlog of litigation cases. He arranged for the complaints officer to cease being secretary to the ethics committee from 1 May 1997 so she could devote more time to complaints. He also arranged for the recruitment of a temporary assistant to help the complaints officer. (Commissioner's note: The Trust told my staff that the assistant had been appointed for a six month period from July 1997.)
Back to top
19. In her official response to me about the complainant's complaint the chief executive apologised for the delays in setting up IRPs and commented that the process was new and that difficulties were experienced in finding mutually acceptable dates for all those involved in panels. She also wrote:
'I only took up post in May of 1996 and it was quite apparent that there was no real preparation work done on the new complaints procedures and as a consequence we were behind from day one. This has been addressed, albeit far slower than I would have wished, but as quickly as available resources would allow. The delays in setting up Independent Review Panels are also compounded when we have to rely heavily on our non-executive Directors to act as conveners, bearing in mind the heavy commitments that they too have on their diaries.
'The fact that [the first convener] was ill and in hospital for a period of time during the autumn of 1996 and then was away on a recuperative holiday for the month of February 97 led to further delays. It was for that reason that I approached [the second convener] .... and asked him to take on some of [the first convener's] work.'
'Our complaints department was also not properly resourced and our complaints officer found it almost impossible to service the convener properly. It was for this reason that, when I appointed [the] Risk Manager, part of his job was specifically designed to oversee complaints and to organise and help the conveners. ....
'.... we would freely admit that we did not handle [the complainant's] request for an Independent Review Panel in a timely fashion and within set time scales .... [The first convener] did not reply to [the complainant] within the twenty working days. This could well have been due to her illness and subsequent admission to hospital.'
Back to top
20. The chief executive told my staff that the first convener had been chosen because of her previous experience in complaints, although the chief executive had been aware that her other work commitments took up a great deal of time. She had discussed with the regional office of the NHS Executive whether an associate convener could be appointed but had understood from them that such a person could only be involved in part of the convening process. The chief executive said she first became aware in October 1996 that delays were occurring in the convening process. She discussed the delays with the chairman who spoke to the first convener, but the situation did not improve.
21. The chief executive told my staff she had been aware that at around the time the complainant complained the complaints officer was busy, but thought she had not appeared under any more pressure than other members of staff. With hindsight she could see that the complaints officer had not received sufficient support from the press officer, who, because her responsibilities covered press issues as well as complaints, had not been best placed to manage her. However, that problem had been overcome by the employment of the risk manager. She was aware that the work load of the complaints office was still too heavy, which was why additional temporary administrative support was being arranged. There was a possibility of creating a permanent post in the future.
22. The chief executive said that the complaints officer had been wrong to offer the complainant a means of continuing with local resolution while at the same time pursuing his request for an IRP. The complaints officer should have told the chief executive of her difficulties with this case, so that they could have discussed between them the best way of proceeding. She did not recall seeing the complainant's letter of 11 December (Annex B) and thought it must have been 'misplaced'. As to her reply to the complainant of 10 January, with hindsight she agreed that he might have thought that it was not necessary for him to contact the Trust again unless he wished to take up the offer of the meeting, although she thought the onus had been on him to do so. She admitted that the complainant's request for an IRP had been badly handled and that more monitoring could have been done. The convening process was complex and because of that there could never be an absolute guarantee that it would be followed successfully. However, she considered that there should no longer be delays in the process because additional resources had been devoted to it; the second convener and the risk manager had acquired expertise in the work; and she was now monitoring the progress of complaints closely and reporting quarterly to the Trust Board on the numbers of complaints received. She was also speaking to the second convener about any problems. She was now aware that it had not been acceptable to expect less senior members of staff, such as the complaints officer, to remind the first convener to respond to outstanding complaints although she would have expected specific problems to be brought to her attention. She confirmed that the second convener had been appointed on 6 December, to assist the first convener, and that although he had not initially wished to take full responsibility for the role because he was too busy, he had since agreed to do so because the sharing of the complaints work had not been working out. The second convener had received no formal training, but that was in the process of being arranged, and he had spoken to her and the risk manager about what was involved. She felt that the convening process was extremely time-consuming and put a lot of pressure on conveners who had other jobs. The chief executive was unable to say why she had not replied to my Deputy's letters in November (paragraph 4). She could not recall having seem them so they might have become lost in the hospital's internal postal system, which was not always reliable.
Back to top
Findings
23. In my Annual Report for 1996-97 I commented that experience so far with the new NHS complaints procedure suggested that it was taking time for the Service to understand and adjust to the new requirements: in particular, to the role of the convener and the use of IRPs. My investigation of the complainant's complaint has revealed particularly worrying examples of such problems of understanding and adjustment. Not one of the IRP requests about which the Trust provided information (Annex A) was correctly handled in accordance with the national guidance. There were delays in acknowledging requests and appointing lay chairmen; papers were mislaid; attempts were made to achieve local resolution in parallel with dealing with IRP requests; and the responses to such requests were delayed long beyond the 20 working days laid down in the national guidance. In the complainant's case it was five months before a decision was made to grant an IRP; and no action to implement that decision had been taken when the complainant died. How did the shortcomings which my investigation has revealed come about?
24. The chief executive has said that no real preparatory work was done on the new complaints procedure. The first convener was appointed despite concerns—which my investigation has shown to be justified—about her capacity to undertake the role given her other commitments. I find it extraordinary, given those concerns, and the fact that no assessment had been made of the amount of work involved, that no system of monitoring the handling of requests for IRPs was put in place when the new procedures came into force. Only in September 1996 was monitoring started. Even then, the delay in dealing with the complainant's case was not picked up; and it was several months before any effective measures were introduced to deal with the backlog of cases which had by then accumulated.
Back to top
25. The chief executive has acknowledged that the complaints department was not properly resourced and that the complaints officer found it almost impossible to service the convener properly. There was no shared understanding between the complaints officer and the first convener about their respective responsibilities in dealing with IRP requests; and I note that there are conflicts of evidence between them about what was done in the complainant's case. I do not underestimate the difficulty health service bodies have in balancing competing priorities, or the onerous responsibilities placed on lay conveners. However, if proper management and monitoring systems had been in place the difficulties which the complaints officer was experiencing should have been identified much earlier than they were, and the scope for changes in the complaints office could have been considered before the problem became so acute. 26. By her own account it was the first convener's practice to seek to achieve local resolution of complaints in parallel with considering requests for IRPs and establishing the availability of persons to serve on panels. That is contrary to national guidance; it is likely to involve nugatory effort; and in the complainant's case and others it had the effect of delaying resolution of the complaint. I note that the second convener when he took over responsibility for the complainant's case also failed to follow the provisions of the national guidance in that he reached a decision on the IRP request without consulting a lay chairman. It is also a matter of concern that the second convener has had no formal training in his role.
27. I recommend that the Trust Board:
- take steps to ensure that all those dealing with requests for IRPs fully understand their respective responsibilities in accordance with national guidance; and
- ensure that the handling of such requests is effectively monitored and that any problems are brought promptly to its attention.
I uphold the complainant's complaint to me.
28. I am aware of the many current pressures on Trusts, and that the requirements of the new complaints system have made further demands on them. I am drawing this report to the attention of the chief executive of the NHS Executive to consider whether any advice or assistance can be provided to the Trust, in the light of my report.
Conclusion
29. I have set out my findings in paragraphs 23-27. The Trust have asked me to convey—as I do through this report—their apologies to the complainant's family for the shortcomings I have identified and have agreed to implement my recommendations in paragraph 27.
Back to top
ANNEX A TO E.0515/96-97
Requests for Independent Review Panels received by The Whittington Hospital NHS Trust as at 2 April 1997
Case 1
13 May 1996; request for IRP made to head nurse and misfiled.
21 June; request acknowledged with request for explanation of why not satisfied with local resolution.
24 June; request sent to first convener.
27 August; lay chairman requested and name provided same day.
10 October; the complainant wrote to the Health Service Commissioner.
4 November; the Deputy Health Service Commissioner wrote to the chief executive asking her to confirm in writing that action had been taken to ensure that complainant received a response as a matter of urgency and that measures had been put in place to prevent similar delays occurring in future.
Late November/early December complaints officer told Community Health Council (CHC) that panel would be held but terms of reference yet to be agreed.
Early March 1997; second convener assumed responsibility for case.
2 June; panel arranged, complainant/CHC unable to attend.
July; panel held.
Case 2
14 June 1996; request for IRP made to first convener.
14 July; acknowledged by Trust.
17 July; complaint file sent to first convener.
27 August; lay chairman requested and name provided same day.
16 October; the complainant wrote to the Health Service Commissioner.
15 November; the Deputy Health Service Commissioner wrote to the chief executive as for Case 1.
9 January 1997; terms of reference for IRP notified to complainant.
April; panel held.
Case 3
11 July 1996; request for IRP made.
16 July; request and complaint file passed to first convener.
27 August; lay chairman requested and name provided same day.
9 September; referred back to local resolution.
Case 4
22 August 1996; request for IRP made.
9 September; acknowledged with request for reasons why not satisfied with local resolution. (No response from complainant but CHC told Trust that complainant wished to have IRP.)
6 December; case passed to second convener.
March 1997; copies of complaint file passed to second convener.
2 May; lay chairman requested.
7 May; name of lay chairman notified.
May-August; Trust attempting to arrange appointment of clinical assessors, problems explained to complainant 26 June.
30 September; panel to be held.
Back to top
Case 5
(The complainant's case: see Annex B)
Case 6
24 October 1996; request for IRP received and referred to first convener.
4 December; complainant wrote to Health Service Commissioner.
6 December; case transferred to second convener.
31 January 1997; Trust informed complaint to be investigated by Health Service Commissioner.
Case 7
5 November 1996; request for IRP made.
20 November; referred to first convener.
6 December; case passed to second convener.
March 1997; copies of complaints file passed to second convener.
2 May; lay chairman requested.
7 May; name of lay chairman notified.
19 May; Second convener discussed case with lay chairman and agreed IRP. Date for panel provisionally fixed for late June or early July but subsequently postponed due to difficulties with finding assessors and chairman's illness.
Panel to be held on 30 September.
Back to top
ANNEX B TO E.0515/96-97
Sequence of correspondence
12 August 1996 The complainant wrote to the chief executive complaining at the way in which his complaint had been handled and stating that he had 'sent all the correspondence in this matter to the Health Service Commissioner's office. Last week they advised me to request that you make all communications between us available to the hospital's Convener, which I now do.'
2 September The chief executive replied asking the complainant to provide a signed statement setting out why he was not satisfied with the outcome of the local resolution process.
6 October The complainant wrote to the chief executive as she had requested setting out his concerns about the way his complaint had been handled.
11 October The complaints officer wrote to the complainant. She concluded her letter:
'... I will be copying all correspondence on file to our convener ... for her consideration. Alternatively, if you feel that you would prefer to have a meeting with those involved in your care and the management of medicine, please call me as soon as possible so that this can be arranged.'
On the same day she wrote to the convener about the complainant's complaint stating:
'I have enclosed a copy of the complaint file for the above patient for your information. [The complainant] would like an independent review of his complaint.
Once you have had a chance to consider the matter please let me know of your decision ...'
Back to top
11 December The complainant wrote to the chief executive pointing out that it was two months since he had been told that his complaint would be passed to the first convener for her consideration. He continued his letter:
'... Your complaints officer offered a meeting with those involved with my case, but, as far as I was concerned, it was pointless discussing my complaint with the very person I had asked to be investigated.
Would you please advise precisely when the correspondence involved was actually passed to Convener, and how long this aspect of the procedure customarily takes?'
10 January 1997 The complainant wrote again to the chief executive saying that it was virtually three months since he had heard from the complaints officer. He asked for the courtesy of a reply.
10 January The chief executive replied to the complainant that his complaint had been brought to the convener's attention, but a lay chairman had not been consulted as the Trust had been waiting for the complainant to respond as to whether he would prefer a meeting to try and resolve his complaint. She went on to say that there had been a delay in dealing with all complaints because the convener had been very ill. (Commissioner's note: The complainant told my staff that he did not receive this letter.)
13 January The complaints officer wrote to the first convener enclosing a further copy of the complainant's complaint file. She stated:
'... The complainant has asked for an independent review of his complaint. I offered .... a meeting as the next step in the process of local resolution but he felt that this would be pointless.
I would be grateful if you could contact me or [the risk manager] as soon as possible if you would like a lay panel chairman to be assigned to this complaint.'
Previous < Contents > Next
Short text of this investigation
Back to top
|
