Website Revenge!

On behalf of Birmingham Community Healthcare NHS Trust the CEO

Mrs Tracy Taylor asks for 269 other offences to be taken into consideration

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 (after purchasing a 'rogue' new-build house), 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 all those responsible!

 

18th March 2011 - jokes & graphics to be added shortly

Just look what Mrs Taylor the CEO has been obliged to admit!

 .................................How has this shameful incompetence come to light?  ..................................... Was it as a consequence of an audit?  Was it because new systems were introduced?  Could it have happened if Mrs Taylor & other Senior Executives had been doing their jobs properly? 

No! No! and No!

... it's because one 'old fart' has refused to allow the Trust to rubbish his Complaint

... yet this is exactly what Mrs Taylor has done, in very many respects, in her disingenuous 10-page 'Final Response'

One 68-year old Patient has exposed appalling incompetence and waste at an NHS Trust, on his own, by himself, alone! Why don't NHS employees and Clinicians speak out - is it because there is a culture of intimidation?

This is what Mrs Taylor has pleaded guilty to: so far!

Mrs Taylor should check her facts and acknowledge that her Report contains a shocking number of misrepresentations.

 

N.B. Extracts from Mrs Taylor's 'Final Response to my Complaint and to events since' are in speech marks in red, but not in italics for ease of reading.

 

Mrs Taylor has only admitted a fraction of the mistakes that have been made, her 'Final Report' is a sham, and she and her senior colleagues should be thoroughly ashamed of treating a Complainant in this way!

 

'I am responsible for ensuring that complaints are responded to appropriately.'

In five and a half months the Trust have refused to make one single word of comment concerning the progress of their enquiries!   I asked questions and was studiously ignored!

XXXXX   'd) The prescriptions were made incorrectly

Otto Bock have reviewed your records and the orthoses and footwear that were provided to you and have advised that there were errors in the manufacturing process on a number of occasions. Otto Bock have asked me to pass on their unreserved apologies in this regard and have confirmed that they have changed their quality control procedures as a result of your complaint and I will expand upon this later on in this letter.'

It had been left to me to draw attention to EVERY SINGLE mistake, yet I was being treated by the Orthotics Manager Mr Brian Hopkins, who simply issued the shoes and orthoses and failed to notice a single mistake - that alone is appalling. He was employed by Otto Bock, and it was his primary responsibility to ensure that so many mistakes did NOT occur.

Presumably, oversight was down to Mr Mark Senior, General Manager - Operations?  If so, then surely he had failed by not ensuring that the Contract for Orthotic Provision was working properly and providing value for money for tax-payers?  Was it appropriate to make him 'The Investigating Officer for my Complaint'?  I don't think so!    Clearly Mrs Taylor the CEO was comfortable with this.

XXXXX   'The errors that have been identified are as follows:

Date Error  August 2009        No ski hooks were fitted to the shoes despite this having been written on the order form'

XXXXX      'February 2010     The soles on the shoes were incorrectly made from vibram; the prescription was found to be correct.'

XXXXX   'I would add my apologies to those of Otto Bock and I hope that the information that I have provided above assures you that the error lay with the manufacturers and not with the prescribing orthotist.'

The prescribing Orthotist was the Orthotics Manager Mr Brian Hopkins who simply issued the shoes to me!  Simply unbelievable, my jaw had dropped the moment I caught sight of the shoes.  Mr Hopkins knew that I had had neuropathic feet for fifteen years and needed shoes to wear that were suitable for wearing in the home for over 95% of the time.

XXXXX   'In summary, it is correct that there were errors in the manufacturing processes which led to incorrect orthoses being provided to you and I am sorry that this was the case. Although this is not acceptable, I should advise you that the frequency with which alterations had to be made contributed to the confusion and consequent errors.'

Re alterations - this is rubbish as you should know.  Arden's, who had supplied both pairs of shoes never made a single alteration to them (they did stretch one pair).  Arden's, or whoever made the orthoses that I was provided with, were never asked to alter any eitherThe Orthotics Department attempted to undertake some alterations, and made 'a real pig's ear of every one that I can recall.  In the process they damaged one pair of orthoses, and Mr Hopkins himself butchered one pair - it was a fiasco.  My Formal Complaint, lodged 9th September 2010 provided you with full details.  You have refused to investigate my complaint properly

XXXXX   'This has however highlighted the requirement for Otto Bock to implement more robust systems and processes to ensure that all shoes and orthoses are checked thoroughly before they are delivered to the WMRC and they are in the process of building these additional checks into their processes.'

Shoes and orthoses should always have been thoroughly checked by the Orthotist before issue, as you well know.

XXXXX   'February 2010 A additional rocker was erroneously added'

Oh Mrs Taylor, you do not have any idea? Or do you? What have you done by referring to this as if it was something trivial!  Not so!  Big mistake, huge consequences!  I ended up in a huge amount of pain, because there was not enough room for my feet in the shoes, and I did not know because of my neuropathy - the orthoses, sitting in the shoes, looked fine.

It is unbelievable that Mr Hopkins failed to notice this on receipt or when he inserted them into the shoes.

XXXXX   'August 2010 The density of the material on the orthoses was too high and not in accordance with the prescription'

That is an offensive way to describe a debacle that deprived me of orthoses that I had desperately needed for a very long time.  Let's put it another way Mrs Taylor, the orthoses were; double the weight they should have been; and the base skeletal layer was hard and beige/brown - when every previous pair of orthoses had been white and soft!  Every one of the 'Seven Dwarfs' would have noticed the difference, even 'Sleepy' or 'Dopey'.

XXXXX   'December 2010 Interim solution orthoses were made and the mistake that was made in August was repeated'

On 23rd December orthoses were received by courier, they were completely unsuitable.  Just like in August they were; double the weight and the base skeletal layer was hard and beige/brown - when every previous pair of my orthoses had been white and soft!  They were also several sizes too big!  I reported this to Mrs Margaret Mitchell the Trust's full time Complaints Manager and she believed me. Afterwards I received an email from the Complaints Manager's Line Manager, Mrs Alison Last, Head of Patient Experience.  Mrs Last insisted that the orthoses conformed to my prescription and that they had been measured and photographed by Otto Bock before despatch! I was made out to be either a liar or a fool. It took me until 11th January to convince them that they were wrong.  I had pressed for replacement orthoses on 19th November because the ones I had were worn out.  I finally received replacements on 2nd February 2011, eleven weeks later, following an additional delay of six weeks

Things like this happened, over and over again, and each time it caused me a tremendous amount of unnecessary pain, and still the Trust dragged their feet, is it any wonder that it made me very angry. 

I had shown my worn-out orthoses to my Consultant Dr Martina Walsh-Khattak as long ago as 19th November at my 60-minute Annual Review (that was seven and a half months overdue!), but she did not want to know.  Afterwards, I showed my worn-out orthoses to Mr Donald Harrison, a General Manager at the WMRC.  Mr Harrison spent two-and-a-half hours, whilst my wife and I waited in a side room, going to and from the Orthotics Department with my worn-out orthoses in his hands: but got nowhere  He also made several telephone calls to no avail.  * See separate page.

I should not have been receiving 'interim' orthoses cooked up by administrators, I should have been receiving orthoses under the supervision of an Orthotist, after an examination of my feet and the shoes that they were being made to fit.  

XXXXX   'Otto Bock has asked me to explain that they sub-contract several of their services to manufacturers and your complaint has highlighted that the degree of error in the manufacturing process is too high. Although I appreciate that this comes too late to be of assistance to you, new systems and processes for checking have been put into place at Otto Bock to prevent erroneous products being provided to patients at WMRC in the future.'

This does not relieve the pain that was caused by my being deprived of orthoses fit to wear, nor the lasting damage to my left foot, that Mrs Taylor has the audacity to deny.  No wonder after promising me an Independent Clinical Review (a promise made by the Investigating Officer for my Complaint Mr Mark Senior) he deliberately reneged on his promise, his excuse is pathetic.  My Orthotist Mr Hopkins seemed to me determined that none of his colleagues would get near to me.  The hierarchy of the Trust have it appears, acted in concert, to avoid anyone Independent from examining my feet or the shoes they provided me with that did not fit/were not suitable, or the orthoses that they obliged me to manage with long after they were worn-outThat is cowardly - they should have 'we do not admit any liability' tattooed across their foreheads in my opinion.  What right do they have to treat a Complainant in this way?  It is immoral.

XXXXX   'I would add my apologies to those of Otto Bock and I hope that the information that I have provided above assures you that the error lay with the manufacturers and not with the prescribing orthotist.'

My Orthotist, Mr Brian Hopkins, was the Orthotics Department Manager, and he ought to have noticed every mistake: it was his job to.  He was employed by Otto Bock as an Orthotist and to run the Orthotics Department! 

Presumably Mr Mark Senior, General Manager -Operations and 'The Investigating Officer for my Complaint,' was responsible for ensuring that Otto Bock's Contract to provide Orthotic Services was working smoothly, and providing tax-payers with good value for money!

XXXXX   'Although I do appreciate that the outcome is the same for you, I hope that you are assured that your prescriptions were correct, which in turn will give you more confidence in the service that Mr Hopkins provided to you.'

No, no, no, Mrs Taylor.  I have NEVER had ANY confidence in some of Mr Hopkins measurements, and this is borne out by the fact that he has provided me with two pairs of shoes that DO NOT FIT!  And I have been left me to pay the price for this which is shameful - I am entitled to two pairs of shoes that FIT, not TWO FAILED ATTEMPTS!         

This is priceless!!!  Mrs Taylor at her very best! Look at the words I have underlined.

XXXXX   'In order to demonstrate Mr Hopkins commitment to providing you with the best care possible I would specifically highlight the occasion in August 2010 when incorrect orthoses were provided to you. I understand that you noted that they were incorrect at the time that you collected them from WMRC; *****although it is unfortunate that you arrived to collect them without an appointment, which meant that Mr Hopkins had not checked them and had not therefore been given the opportunity to identify the error.'

***** Whoops Mrs Taylor! Whoops! Not only is YOUR Report stuffed with serious misrepresentations (I think the correct word in legal terms is 'gross'), there are mistakes galore, and can it really be by accident that you have failed to address so many matters that support my claims?

My wife and I keep an A4 diary, and I made an entry on Friday 13th August that might interest you - or not?  It reads 'Selly Oak - lady telephoned to say orthoses were in - Blatchford's shoes and orthoses, sandals and orthoses - away nearly six weeks.'  Six weeks is a very long while to be without any shoes that even remotely fit. Now I realise that you would not regard that as 'evidence', indeed you might regard it with deep suspicion!

On Monday our car was having the air con cleaned out and re-gassed, and on Tuesday my wife was having her hair done and had another engagement. On Wednesday 18th August I had an appointment in Birmingham with a Neurologist at the University Hospital Birmingham, and afterwards we called in to collect my shoes, sandals and two pairs of orthoses - by arrangement!  At least we hoped to. Mr Hopkins was not there, but when I insisted on speaking to someone else - it was an emergency - Mr Hopkins suddenly materialised!  He was not going to allow anyone else to see me!  Records Mrs Taylor! Records!  The only way to beat the system.

Now please refer to the letter dated 16th August which I sent to Mr Hopkins by fax!  Ta ra!!!  As you will see, in it I registered a formal complaint, I had finally come to the end of my tether, Mr Hopkins had bullied and ignored me for too long.  I would direct your attention to the paragraph that commences 'On Friday 13th August I received a telephone call advising me that the orthoses you ordered for my old Blatchford's shoes (on 5th July) had finally come through ... ...'

XXXXX   I would like to advise you that he personally returned them to the manufacturer after he had finished work and requested that the insoles be made to the correct prescription.

But Mrs Taylor; 1) This was a complete debacle and Mr Hopkins should have checked the orthoses before anyone telephoned.  2) I had faxed him the abovementioned letter two days before, formally complaining about the treatment I had received from him, a reminder if he had failed to check.   3) The suppliers were local and Mr Hopkins used to call in regularly to discuss work in progress.  4) I had first shown Mr Hopkins my already worn-out orthoses on 5th July (see letter), but he had simply ignored me.  I had drawn your attention to Mr Hopkins doing just this in my Formal letter of Complaint i.e. his appalling attitude towards me, comments endorsed by my wife who had accompanied me to every clinical appointment bar one - I had been obliged to water down her views!  I had so much enjoyed your comment about this in your Final Response, which I regarded as a masterful use of words.  '... the service does take all complaints of staff attitude seriously and Mr Hopkins has of course been made aware of the comments that you have made about him in your complaint and will reflect upon these in the future.'  (I doubt that very much!) And how pray do you know?  

XXXXX  'In summary, it is correct that there were errors in the manufacturing processes which led to incorrect orthoses being provided to you and I am sorry that this was the case.' 

Three out of ten pairs were unmitigated debacles, and of the other seven, one was damaged at 'a Regional Centre of Excellence', one was butchered at 'a Regional Centre of Excellence' and one was made for shoes that did not fit and were unsuitable for use in my other shoes!

XXXXX   Although this is not acceptable, I should advise you that the frequency with which alterations had to be made contributed to the confusion and consequent errors.'

No! No! No! The original prescription for my orthoses was never changed, this was what I was complaining about!

XXXXX  'This has however highlighted the requirement for Otto Bock to implement more robust systems and processes to ensure that all shoes and orthoses are checked thoroughly before they are delivered to the WMRC and they are in the process of building these additional checks into their processes.'

How will that repair the damage to my feet?

XXXX   'Summary

XXXXX   In summary I accept that there were shortcomings in the care that has been provided to you at WMRC in as follows:'

'I accept there were shortcomings' - what planet does Mrs Taylor inhabit? Oz?

XXXXX   '1) The way in which your initial letter of complaint was dealt with; I would like to assure you that a new complaints process has now been put into place and this will be monitored to ensure that complaints are processed in a timely way and that the patient is kept informed in relation to when a full response will be forthcoming.'

Note, no undertaking to provide a single word of information until the end of the process, that can be six months away or more.

So, my efforts have led to changes to the Trust's 'Complaints Procedures' as well, and not before time I'd say - another feather in my cap?  At the expense of a few more knives in my back of course - but no regrets - bullies have to be tackled head on, especially state sponsored 'Teflon' coated bullies!

Mrs Taylor is referring to the fact that apparently, my letter of Complaint initially lay gathering dust for six weeks, although the Trust's full-time Complaints Manager Mrs Margaret Mitchell, assures me that this was not for want of trying on her part!  (And I believe her) A problem at the West Midlands Rehabilitation Centre I assume, Mr Mark Senior's domain.  Everyone has been very tight-lipped about this, and a great many other matters, and despite my repeatedly asking for an explanation, I have been denied one.  To me that is just plain ignorant, because I have suffered six weeks extra pain and damage as a result.

XXXXX   '2) I can also confirm that changes will be made to the Trust’s Complaints Policy to ensure that staff and patients are fully aware of what is expected of them throughout the investigation process and beyond.'

This should include classes in anger management to cover the Complainant's frustration after they have asked the same questions repeatedly and simply been stonewalled; simply ignored time after time; like it's some silly game for people with nothing better to do.

XXXXX   '3) Otto Bock failed to respond to the elements of the complaint that related to the service that they have provided to the Trust in a timely way and have offered their apologies in this regard. The senior management team in WMRC are working with Otto Bock to produce written protocols for the investigation of complaints in order to ensure that complaints are dealt with more appropriately in the future.'

Otto Bock should never have been allowed to stall, and stall, and stall, - they are a very profitable Company.  Mrs Taylor should have 'had a word in their ear', and if they still hadn't responded she should have eaten them - no problem!  I have found her to be hard and insensitive; callous even - in my opinion she could chew house bricks!

XXXXX   '4) There were a number of occasions where the manufacturer failed to follow instructions and the prescription that had been provided to them, and this has resulted in more robust quality assessment procedures being put into place.'

The Orthotics Department, run by employees of Otto Bock; the service received from Otto Bock; the West Midlands Rehabilitation Centre; the Complaints Department; the Trust and the Chief Executive's Office as a whole should never have been allowed to get into such an awful state.  Who will oversee the improvements?

XXXXX   'I am very sorry for these failings and for the fact that the WMRC failed to achieve a successful solution for the pain that you are experiencing, but following the in-depth investigation that has taken place I am satisfied that the staff involved have made every effort to do so.'

It is deeply offensive that Mrs Taylor should refer to their investigation as 'in depth'.  No-one independent has been involved in the investigation.  It related to the treatment I received, and the two pairs of shoes that they provided, which I could not tolerate wearing because they fouled my toes and were unsuitable in other respects.  I was deliberately left with no choice but to manage as best I could with orthoses that were so worn-out that they were unfit to put under anyone's feet, let alone be used by someone with neuropathic feet.  What is more, since last September they have deliberately deprived me of appropriate clinical care, including access to an Orthotist. 

  'I am also satisfied that this has not in any way impacted on your clinical care.'

Given the nature of the investigation I would hope that any right-minded person would view this as a despicable statement to make.

There must be quite a lot of people at the Trust, including Clinicians, and numerous very Senior Executives who have been involved along the way, who are aware of how badly I have been treated, yet they remain silent.

How do they live with themselves?

 

Click here to return to Home Page

 

*©Website Copyright PAD

Email: peter.bmw@tiscali.co.uk