Complaint Handling by CPFT
I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy.
Failure to Acknowledge Mistakes
Averil started University in the September 2012, yet by the 12th December, she had died from a treatable illness, while ostensibly under the care of two separate organisations. CPFT runs one of these organisations and is yet to acknowledge any mistakes were made in Averil's treatment.
​
Although individuals have expressed their sympathy for our loss and the trust has promised to bring about improvements, we remain unconvinced. A commitment to change cannot be sincere without first recognising that failures have occurred.
The Trust acknowledges that Averil died whilst in their care and they acknowledge that the service they provide needs to improve to protect patients in the future, but they refuse to recognise that the two are connected.
Failure to Apologise for Averil's Death
An apology requires an acknowledgement of one's actions and one's responsibility, alongside an admission that those actions caused the outcome complained of.
In CPFT's Serious Incident Report, clear acknowledgement is made of several mistakes in treatment, for example, the appointment of an inexperienced "trainee" psychologist to Averil's case was not deemed to be clinically appropriate by the reviewing team.
However, we have yet to receive an acknowledgement that a more experienced clinician, and better supervisory arrangements, would have prevented Averil's sharp decline, and thus, her death.
Failure to Answer Questions Openly and Honestly
Responses to questions that relate to the death of a patient in their care should be clear, correct, complete and commensurate.
Our responses from CPFT have been lacking in at least one of these elements, and an account of all specific failings would be of significant. This section will outline several examples of the way in which our questions have failed to yield sufficient answers.
Still two years into the Ombudsman report, questions about the supervision of Averil's trainee psychologist are yet to be answered by CPFT.
Significant Delays in Responding to Communications
We submitted our official complaint regarding the transitional care arranged. The date of this submission was 8th January 2014 and receipt was acknowledged the same day.
We received a response to this complaint on 22nd May 2014, after a delay of over five months.
Failure to Supply Medical Notes
We requested Averil's full medical records from CPFT (Letter dated 01/02/2013) in accordance with our rights under the Access to Health Records Act 1990.
We were told that a lead clinician would review the records to release what could be disclosed to us. The rest, we were told, was protected either by Averil's expectations of confidentiality or that it may cause stress to the family.
We have since submitted another request for the medical records, which appears to have been dealt with more comprehensively. However, they would only release information that was not deemed to be confidential to the client or the patient.
To read out full complaint, please click on the link