Website Revenge!

THE TRUST FINALLY REVEALS

OTTO BOCK's BREATHTAKING INCOMPETENCE! 

DISCLAIMER. This Website is based on my experiences and any opinions expressed are mine alone. I apologise unreservedly for any errors or omissions which, if drawn to my attention, will be corrected. I have done my very best to make my account both honest and accurate, and since establishing my first Website in September 1999 no errors of fact have been drawn to my attention: nor have I been obliged by anyone to withdraw any website content. Whenever attempts have been made to close a site my ISP has always supported me, for which I am very grateful. I have evidence to support the claims that I am making. My aim is to SHAME those responsible!

*©Website Copyright PAD

Extracts from Mr Senior's report are in BLACK, the TRUTH is in RED or GREEN.

Despite overlooking many shortcomings, Mr Senior highlighted at least some of Otto Bock's many failings, culminating in a very clear warning that unless there was an improvement their contract might not be renewed - strong stuff for the NHS.

At the same time as lambasting Otto Bock for not being aware of numerous manufacturing mistakes, and  not having appropriate systems, for e.g. for specifying when manufactured goods were required for; not having any system for checking them on arrival; and not knowing when goods were overdue, and despite admitting simply unacceptable delays, Mr Senior's Report maintains that none of the mistakes (only some of many) that have been highlighted that affected my treatment during my period with the WMRC, nor repeated long delays that left me without anything suitable to wear for long periods (except completely worn out orthoses in very old worn out baggy shoes), that this did not have any affect on my feet, mobility or general health!  Unbelievable - was I expected to walk on my hands or crawl around on my hands and knees - be reasonable Mr Senior!

Recommendations:
Formal meeting with Otto Bock senior management to review their response to this complaint in light of contractual obligations, noting contract expiry in 2012, considering sanctions for any future breach.
WMRC and Otto Bock to develop and implement protocol for joint investigation of complaints that relate to prosthetics and orthotics, working with the Trust's Head of Corporate Affairs. This should include clear timescales, in line with BCHC Complaints Policy and the contract with Otto Bock. Otto Bock should appoint a responsible manager

Concerning mistakes made by the manufacturers of my shoes/orthoses that my Orthotist Mr Brian Hopkins issued to me, that he should have previously picked up.  I was left to draw his attention to every one!  That was simply not good enough.

• Points (a) to (c): The degree of correction that has been required due to manufacturer error is unacceptable.

• Point (c): Whilst the orthoses on 18th August 2010 were issued unchecked, this was as a result of Mr Dawson's attendance at the centre without an appointment to collect these.

  We did not turn up 'out of the blue' - we NEVER simply turned up - we have to travel over twenty miles from Worcester - why would we? And why on one isolated occasion, it doesn't make any sense.

Whilst I may have telephoned Mr Hopkins' Assistant to enquire when my orthoses were expected, my wife and I can clearly recall receiving a telephone call from the Centre advising us that my replacement orthoses were available for collection - fact!  No-one would have issued them without first referring to Mr Hopkins.

I was very annoyed to discover that instead of them being soft they were hard - much too hard for me to be able to tolerate - they were also completely different in appearance. 

 

Recommendation:
WMRC recommended the implementation of a more robust quality control system to verify manufacture against prescription prior to issuing to patient
Otto Bock have advised they have already made changes as a result of this investigation WMRC await evidence of this (also see Otto Bock reports at appendices 8 and 13). 

Yet none of these mistakes and numerous very long delays had any detrimental effect on my feet, mobility or pain levels - surely this beggars belief.  The fact is I was repeatedly left for long periods with nothing remotely suitable to wear.

 Recommendations:
- Put in place systems to ensure that previous clinical information provided is reviewed prior to referral being accepted by WMRC


Ensure that WMRC specialist clinics staff make responsibility for care explicit when discussing and communicating with local referrers, particularly when a second opinion or assessment support has been requested


b. Otto Bock to review process to following up orders that have not been delivered on time
Mr Dawson's complaint suggests at least two occasions where delivery of equipment from the manufacturers has been late or delayed, and it appears that action was only taken by Otto Bock when Mr Dawson rang up to chase the order.
Examples include:
• Summer 2009 - Otto Bock order form includes date required as 1/7/09, but first fit as 4/8/09. Manufacturer: Otto Bock
• Winter 2009/10 - Order form has a date required of 10/12/09, date stamp of 6/1/10 and completion of 2/2/10. Unclear on reasons for either of these delays. Manufacturer: Otto Bock
This is also highlighted in the Otto Bock report, appendix 8.


Recommendation:
- Otto Bock to provide evidence that a system has been put in place to ensure that all orders have a due date, that these are followed up if not delivered by the due date, and that the current position is communicated to the patient

 

d. Reliance on sub-contact or. Otto Bock were formally asked to investigate the complaint by WMRC in late October, and agreed to respond within 3 weeks. This deadline was not met, and the investigation was passed to another Otto Bock manager in December. The first response (an initial observations report) was received on 22nd December 2010), followed by a brief addendum on 4th January 2011. The detail provided was inadequate for the seriousness of the allegations, especially as the complaint related almost entirely to care provided by Otto Bock on behalf of WMRC. A more detailed report has now been received and is included at appendix 8, however the speed and quality of response from Otto Bock has been unacceptable and requires addressing

This proves without a shadow of doubt, that on 6th January, when the Trust made their spiteful decision to discharge me into the care of my GP (who had no orthotic provision at his disposal) they had not received an acceptable Report from Otto Bock.    What is more, there was nothing stopping them referring me to an Orthotist working out of well known and well respected Orthotics Providers who were located only two miles down the road, who they knew well and had dealt with for years!  If that doesn't prove that they were being deliberately spiteful I don't know what does.

 

Recommendations:
Formal meeting with Otto Bock senior management to review their response to this complaint in light of contractual obligations, noting contract expiry in 2012, considering sanctions for any future breach.
WMRC and Otto Bock to develop and implement protocol for joint investigation of complaints that relate to prosthetics and orthotics, working with the Trust's Head of Corporate Affairs. This should include clear timescales, in line with BCHC Complaints Policy and the contract with Otto Bock. Otto Bock should appoint a responsible manager immediately, who will be responsible for a detailed investigation of all issues relating to Otto Bock provision and staff.
 

 ' ... in light of contractual obligations, noting contract expiry in 2012, considering sanctions for any future breach.' This says it all!  But if Mr Senior and Mrs Taylor are to be believed, I did not suffer as a consequence - that beggars belief!

 

 

 

I have always been fastidious about attending appointments early, let alone on time, and on the very few occasions (in a lifetime) that I have been obliged by circumstances to give my apologies, I have always had good reason, and have notified the other party at the first available opportunity, as I did with the Meeting at the BCH/C NHS Trust, as Mrs Tracy Taylor is well aware! 

Anyone that says otherwise is being deliberately dishonest. 

 

Click here to return to Home Page

 

*©Website Copyright PAD