Health Service Commissioner : first report for session 1981-82 : selected investigations completed April-September 1981 / Health Service Commissioner.

  • Great Britain. Health Service Commissioner.
Date:
[1981]
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Health Service Commissioner : first report for session 1981-82 : selected investigations completed April-September 1981 / Health Service Commissioner. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    12/218 (page 10)
    AHA he said that the consultant ‘simply side-stepped the specific points I raised by suggesting that he be allowed to concentrate on the child’. The complainant said that the consultant had suggested that he should refer his complaints ‘to the authorities’. 19. Inastatement the consultant made in response to the AHA’s investigation of the initial complaint, he confirmed that the complainant’s wife had questioned him when she brought their son to the hospital on 11 July and went on to say ‘in spite of repeated interruptions by the mother, who appeared to be quite oblivious of the condition of the poor child, I completed my examination and advised immediate admission... .’. As regards his meeting on the ward with the complainant the consultant stated: ‘I was confronted by the father in the middle of the ward and he stated that he had complaints to make. I told him that at that particular moment I must concentrate on the care and treatment of the patients in the ward and I also was not prepared to discuss his complaints in the open ward in front of ill children and the rest of the staff’. The consultant told my officer that he did not feel that there had been ‘unpleasantness’, but he thought there was a time when the administration should take over and he should be allowed to get on with treating patients without interruption. He subsequently pointed out that he had seen the complainant and his wife when he had reviewed their son’s condition on 8 August and that they had not taken the opportunity. to talk about their grievances. 20. The AHA’s reply to the complainant’s initial letter of complaint said that ‘[the consultant] has confirmed your account of the events which took place on 11 July. It is clear, however, that he was irritated by what he regarded as repeated interruptions from your wife while he endeavoured to examine your son and by your subsequently seeking to discuss with him during the course of a ward round, matters for which he was largely not directly responsible’. In a subsequent letter dated 4 January 1978, the AHA informed the complainant that the consult- ant had requested them to reply as follows: ‘[the consultant] maintains that he had carried out treatment to your Son’s injury promptly and efficiently leading to a complete cure in the least possible time. He refutes all your allegations and wishes to say that if you have any further complaints concerning his treatment to your Son, then would you please communicate directly with him’. 21. The complainant replied to the effect that he had acted reasonably when he approached the consultant on the ward as also had his wife when she sought information from the consultant about their son’s treatment. The consultant’s position was, he said, incomprehensible because he had first suggested that the complaints be addressed to the authority, then direct to him; he had confirmed the complainant’s account of what happened on 11 July and then ‘refuted’ the complainant’s allegations. The complainant sought clarification of what allega- tions the consultant referred to and on what basis they were refuted, but this was not forthcoming. 22. In January 1979 a meeting between the Chairman of the AHA and the District Administrator (the DA) was arranged and at this meeting a further one involving the consultant was proposed. On 22 March 1979 the DA wrote to the complainant to say that, while a further meeting could be arranged it would not involve the consultant who, by this time, had consulted his medical defence