Care Quality Commission Opiniones 88

The CQC website says ‘we make sure health services provide people with safe, effective, compassionate, high quality care' so I contacted the Sheffield CQC in July 2020 and told them a colorectal surgeon had ended my care with the whole Dept when I’d got a 2nd opinion which is a patient right AND this was after a complication after surgery.

I sent a letter, date 14.11.18 from Mr Chapple before he knew about the 2nd opinion which said

‘Mr Chapple or another clinician would be more than happy to find a solution to your problems'

I forwarded an email from his secretary 20.1.20 which said she was going to contact the surgeon I’d got a 2nd opinion from and I sent the letter I received from Mr Chapple on 19.3.20 after his secretary had contacted this surgeon which said

‘It was agreed there were no further surgical treatment the colorectal department could offer you. It was also discussed that the therapeutic relationship that exists between yourself and the surgical specialists involved in your care had completely broken down’

I told the CQC that the GMC has rules when a Dr can end a professional r.ship ( abuse, theft) and what he must do (warn patient first) but Mr Chapple didn't follow any of these.

I sent the CQC the NHS rules when something goes wrong which say the NHS provider must tell you what will be done to put things right but as soon as I asked if there had been a surgical error, Mr Chapple (who in the May 2018 apptmt was about to tell me what could be done) changed and said I needed a psychiatric assessment and treatment and refused all help until I’d had that and I told the CQC PALs hadn't helped me. I now know this is medical gaslighting (dismissing the facts and blaming them on psychiatric problems and using that to not help the patient) and is a form of emotional abuse which PALs and the hospital trust should have stopped.

I sent the CQC 5 letters I got from Mr Chapple, the 21.2.19 letter said ‘further physical treatments should not be offered until your psychological issues have been addressed. The 8.5.19 letter said ‘your psychological problems need to be addressed and that until that time it would not be appropriate to refer you for further ano rectal investigations’ I sent questions in Feb, Mar, Apr and May 2019 but Mr Chapple on 21.5.19 said ‘we are unable to provide you with any further information and. . . continued correspondence with you would not be beneficial . . . further emails we receive from you will be filed and not responded to’. He used the gaslighting to refuse me answers, tests and help for 2 years

I told the CQC that I had tools for stress which were noted in my medical records, I was managing all bills, researching things from the NHS, NICE and GMC sites, I’d never self harmed. I sent the CQC the questions I sent Mr Chapple in 2019 which showed all the research I’d done into nutrition and supplement limits for wounds + more examples, all markers of good mental health.

On 5.10.20 the CQC replied ‘we are satisfied that the trust have taken all reasonable steps to provide you with second opinions and we do not feel there has been a failure to meet the regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008’.....We have come to this decision as there is no evidence of avoidable harm or exposure to harm by the decisions that Sheffield have made’

Mr Chapple said I could get a 2nd opinion from his colleague Ms Hunt and as I expected and told PALS she supported him and the CQC still wrote ‘we are satisfied that the trust have taken all reasonable steps to provide you with second opinions'.They mentioned nothing about them both insisting on psychiatric help when they had seen evidence I didn’t need it, they should have identified this as medical gaslighting and stopped it but didn't. They said nothing about him ending my care after a complication which doubles the trauma for a patient and they said nothing about him ending it discriminately because I’d got a 2nd opinion from an expert and they said nothing about him not following NHS rules and telling me what could be done for the complication first.

I also had a look at the the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and in section Person-centred care No 9.it says ‘The care and treatment of service users must (a) be appropriate, (b)meet their needs’

Ending my care discriminately, medically gaslighting me for 2 years, refusing tests,answers, help was not appropriate but still the CQC said we do not feel there has been a failure to meet the regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008’

How the CQC can have evidence of dishonesty, discrimination, medical gaslighting + emotional abuse when I was vulnerable and say

‘there is no evidence of avoidable harm or exposure to harm by the decisions that Sheffield have made’ is beyond me

= the CQC ENABLES ABUSE

The function of tge cqc is to not pay anything out. The staff are incompetent, dishonest and working to a single objective - to avoid responsibility for anything. A complete waste of time and money.

They visit nursing homes with dementia patents and write up their reports as if those patients they have talked to have an idea what they are on about! I have read their inspection reports about a couple of nursing homes and then I visited those nursing homes to see what they really are like. The first impression can be very misleading and believe me this is almost always the case with nursing homes if they are funded by local authorities. CQC inspectors of course know this very well but since they do not want the elderly to benefit from CHC funding they tend to write very positive things about local authority funded care homes- well, this is at least what I think.

After they carried out their biased and simply appalling assessment, CHC Oxford cut the eligibility funding and my mum then had to be transferred from her nursing home to a local authority funded care home. The local authority funded care home I visited had a friendly staff and somewhat acceptable lounge which was also used as a dining area, and clean bedrooms with basic furnishing. The outside seating area was small but looked tidy. This LA funded nursing home was of course inspected by CQC and their services were described as "outstanding" by this organisation... However, after my mum was transferred to this local authority funded care home, I cannot give their name for legal reasons, I noticed a couple of things wrong from the very beginning:

1- My mum needed a pressure mattress and assistance with everything from A-Z. But I often found her left on her own asleep in a dirty chair with no side supports and a pressure mattress!

2- Due to safety concerns my mum had to have her own bedroom. However, this place only provided a shared accommodation and re-located her to a single room just prior to she became very ill.

3- My mum was at high risk of malnutrition and dehydration. At this local authority funded nursing home she rapidly lost weight and had to be admitted to hospital on her third week.

4- Since my mum was doubly incontinent the nursing home had to regularly change her pads. This was of course not the case and my mum eventually caught a nasty infection.

Before I knew it, my mum died within a month! This organisation does not even investigate how long on average patients with certain comorbidity live in a nursing home and how such statistics differs from one nursing home to another. Of course, if such statistics were made available, that would have been a public outcry across the country.