Annual Report 2007-08 - the Parliamentary and Health Service ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Individual and public benefitOur health work during 2007-08 clearlyillustrated the dual aspect of theOmbudsman’s role in achieving remedyin individual cases, while also providingwider public benefit. This wider benefitstems from the effective use of ourevidence base and our expertise inproviding a high quality complainthandling service, together with anacknowledged reputation forindependence and impartiality. Thisenables us to provide expertise in goodadministration and good complainthandling, drive improvements in thedelivery of healthcare and informpublic policy, demonstrating that theOmbudsman not only provides aretrospective remedy for injustice orhardship resulting from maladministrationor service failure, but also seeks to secureprospective improvements in the widerpublic interest.In addition to our casework, a major focusin 2007-08 was on preparing for our rolein the new NHS system for handlingcomplaints, which begins in April 2009.In March 2005 we published MakingThings Better? A report on reformof the NHS complaints procedurein England. This informed a Departmentof Health consultation paper, MakingExperiences Count, a new approach toresponding to complaints, published inJune 2007, which set out proposals forimproving and integrating the handling ofcomplaints about health and social care.Now, the Department has developed anew system for handling complaints,which will launch in April 2009. We fullysupport these new arrangements, whichwe believe will enable complaints againstthe NHS to be dealt with more quickly,efficiently and fairly. We say more aboutthe new arrangements on page 39.A Framework of PrinciplesAfter wide consultation, in October 2007we published our Principles for Remedy,which offer complementary guidance toour Principles of Good Administration,published in March 2007. The Principlesfor Remedy follow the same six Principlesas our Principles of Good Administration:• Getting it right• Being customer focused• Being open and accountable• Acting fairly and proportionately• Putting things right• Seeking continuous improvement.Principles for Remedy gives our viewof the Principles that should guide NHSbodies and individual practitioners inproviding remedies for injustice resultingfrom their maladministration or servicefailure. We want NHS bodies andindividuals to be fair and takeresponsibility, acknowledge failures andapologise for them, make amends and usethe opportunity to improve their services.During 2007-08 we developed the thirdin our series of Principles, which we havebeen consulting on in recent monthsand will publish in autumn 2008. OurPrinciples of Good Complaint Handlingare based on the same six core Principlesas our Principles of Good Administrationand Principles for Remedy. With them weaim to ensure that NHS bodies andindividuals understand how we expectcomplaints to be handled, and thatcomplainants understand how we willconsider their cases. As with the existingPrinciples, we hope that they will proveuseful to both complaint handlers andcomplainants.Poor complaint handling by NHS bodiesand individuals was a recurrent themeacross our health investigations in 2007-08,and one we refer to frequently in thepages that follow. Often, the failure toprovide an adequate remedy is an elementof poor complaint handling, and is asignificant factor in the complainant’sdecision to refer the complaint to usfor investigation, as in the followingtwo examples.Poor complaint handlingIn the case of Mr P an NHS Trust (theTrust) failed to explain adequately whyit refused to respond to two complaintshe made on behalf of a friend sufferingfrom Alzheimer’s disease. Nor did theTrust demonstrate that it had consideredthe NHS (Complaints) Regulations or therelevant legislation in reaching its decision.36
Parliamentary and health service ombudsman annual report 2007-0815Case StudyPatient confidentiality was noreason to withhold responseIn October 2006 Mr P made two complaints to Bedfordshireand Luton Mental Health and Social Care Partnership NHS Trust(the Trust) on behalf of his friend of many years, Mr T, who suffersfrom Alzheimer’s disease and so was unable to make thecomplaints himself. Mr P’s complaints were about the care andtreatment provided by the Trust to his friend, and about thesuitability of a nursing home, which Mr P believed was contraryto Mr T’s best interests and against his wishes. The Trust toldMr P that they could not respond to his complaints, citing theneed to protect patient confidentiality and the Data ProtectionAct, but would take up the matters he had raised with Mr T’s sister,as next of kin.Mr P complained to the Ombudsman that the Trust’s refusal torespond to his complaints meant his concerns about Mr T’s careand treatment remained unanswered. We upheld Mr P’s complaint.While patient confidentiality is a legitimate consideration whendeciding whether a representative is a suitable complainant, theTrust did not adequately explain to Mr P why it should not respondto his complaints. Nor did it demonstrate that it had adequatelyconsidered the NHS Complaints Regulations or the relevantlegislation in reaching its decision. We found no evidence that theTrust had established whether Mr T was capable of providingconsent for the release of confidential information to Mr P, orconsidered if Mr T had given implied consent to release. There wasno evidence that the Trust had considered whether there was anyoverriding public interest reason for disclosing information to Mr P,or if any aspects of his complaint could be responded to withoutreleasing confidential information.The Trust agreed to apologise to Mr P for the failings we hadidentified and to reconsider his request to bring a complaint onMr T’s behalf, taking account of the issues we had raised in ourreport (in particular the need to provide Mr P with written reasonsfor its decision).37
Page 3 and 4: Annual Report2007-085th Report - Se
Page 5: previously identified. I am pleased
Page 8 and 9: Figure 1 continuedTop 5 departments
Page 11 and 12: Parliamentary and health service om
Page 15 and 16: Parliamentray and health service om
Page 17 and 18: Parliamentray and health service om
Page 27: Parliamentary and health service om
Page 30 and 31: 13Case StudyMishandled corresponden
Page 52 and 53: Figure 7Joint investigations conduc
Page 54 and 55: We have had continuing contact with
Page 56 and 57: abc56
Page 58 and 59: 405%Telephone405%Telephone403%Writt
Page 60 and 61: Figure 9 continuedTop 5 Parliamenta
Page 62 and 63: Figure 11aNumber of types of closed
Page 64 and 65: Figure 13Top 5 departments by numbe
Page 66 and 67: Figure 15Top 5 departments by numbe
Page 68 and 69: Figure 16Health investigations repo
Page 70 and 71: Figure 19: Parliamentary complaints
Page 72 and 73: Figure 19 continued: Parliamentary
Page 74 and 75: Figure 19 continued: Parliamentary
Page 76 and 77: Figure 20: Distribution of continui
Page 78 and 79: Figure 22: Distribution of health c
Page 80 and 81: Judicial reviews of our decisionsan
Page 82 and 83: Applying our Principles to ourown w
Page 84 and 85: Capturing, organising and sharingou
Page 86 and 87:
abc86
Page 88 and 89:
Financial reviewPHSO’s net operat
Page 90 and 91:
Balance sheet as at 31 March 200831
Page 92 and 93:
The Board as at March 2008Ann Abrah
Page 94 and 95:
The Executive BoardAn Executive Boa
show all

Annual Report 2007-08 - the Parliamentary and Health Service ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?