By David Czarnetzki 

18th October 2024

Followers of PHSO The True Story might like to refresh their memories of my article of June 10th 2024 on this website entitled ‘Reputation Management – the PHSO way’

In it, I addressed the actions of PHSO in touting for evidence from selected organisations regarding submissions to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC).

One such organisation was the Continuing Healthcare Alliance and, as averred in my article, the outcome of my contact with the Alliance was it refused to review PHSO progress against recommendations contained in the Patients Association’s critical report issued in 2015.

The Patient’s Association is a member of the Alliance and has a wider remit than continuing healthcare. That being so, I thought it appropriate, on behalf of PHSOthefacts, to contact the Patients Association again. 

I am grateful the Patients Association has agreed to the following exchange of emails being published. Transparency is so important, particularly in times when so many individuals have reported the lack of it in their dealings with the PHSO and the NHS. 

The initial two emails below, from the Continuing Healthcare Alliance and my reply, were sent to the Patients Association requesting their formal response

From: Continuing Healthcare Alliance

Sent: Friday, June 7th 2024 

Dear David, 

Thank you for taking the time to meet with us on 30 April. We discussed with other members of the Alliance your request to review progress against the recommendations in appendices 1 and 2 of the Patients’ Association 2016 report on the PHSO, to ascertain whether any improvements had been made and whether any other issues had emerged. Upon discussion, the Alliance concluded that this request is beyond the scope of the Alliance, the focus of which is specifically on issues related to NHS continuing healthcare. The Alliance is therefore not in a position to take forward your request.

There may be other organisations or alliances with a broader remit that would be able to support your proposal. We hope you understand our position and are sorry that we cannot help you further with your request.

 

From David Czarnetzki to Continuing Healthcare Alliance

Sent: Monday, June 10th 2024

Thank you for the email. Your response has enabled me to complete the article for PHSO The True Story posted on the website today.

On a personal note, may I say I am disappointed with the response from the Alliance, particularly as PHSO has responsibility for investigating matters relating to Integrated Care Boards and their private contractors and also doctor’s surgeries. These are fundamental areas relating to continuing healthcare.

I can only hope that, if approached by the Ombudsman in the future, the Alliance will take steps to ensure it provides a wider understanding of the issues in any evidence and perhaps will feel it can support the efforts of the backbench MPs on the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the outgoing Ombudsman.

It is particularly disappointing that it was the Patients Association that identified the issues nine years ago and yet, as a member of the Alliance, seems unable to use its membership to bring about the change needed. I am forwarding this email to the Patients Association in order to make them aware of the article.

You are, of course, quite welcome to make comments on the blog itself. Irrespective of our different views, I thank you for your time.

Yours sincerely

David Czarnetzki

From: Patients Association

Sent: Monday, September 9th 2024

Dear Mr. Czarnetzki,

Thank you for your detailed inquiry regarding the Patients Association’s position on various matters related to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO). The Board of Trustees has carefully considered your questions and requests. Please find our responses below:

Official response of the Continuing Healthcare Alliance:

As a member of the Alliance, we are aware of their response. However, as you correctly note, our remit is much broader than Continuing Healthcare.

PACAC’s view on urgent reform of PHSO: 

The Trustees acknowledge the importance of this issue, and the recommendations made by PACAC.   We will be updating our position statement in the Autumn.

Actively joining a campaign for reform:

At this time, the Board has decided that our organisation will not be actively joining any campaigns.  We believe it’s prudent to wait for the appointment of a permanent Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman before determining our next steps. We will communicate any updates to our position through our official channels once they are finalised.

This response has been approved by the Board of Trustees of the Patients Association.

From: David Czarnetzki

Sent: 10 September 2024 10:49
To: Patients Association

Thank you for your email.

I am rather confused. You state your board has decided not to join any campaigns yet, throughout August alone, you have actively published items regarding Supporting Health Equals, urged your readers to write to their MPs in support of Prescription Charges Coalition (of which you are a member) and championed patients access to their records. 

Can you please clarify whether you are ceasing to support all campaigns or just ours regarding Ombudsman reform? If the former, the Patients Association’s relevance is greatly reduced. If the latter, it is clear the Patients Association’s continued silence is rather dispiriting to the many people affected by the current standards of the very few investigations that take place and the minute number reaching the investigation stage that becomes fully or partly upheld.

We must go back in history. It was the Patients Association that highlighted the fact that PHSO is not fit for purpose back in 2015 culminating in your Chief Executive at the time appearing before the Health Select Committee. Since then, the service has deteriorated markedly as identified in repeated public evidence to PACAC which itself, has called for reform as did the outgoing Ombudsman, Mr. Behrens.

I would point out the outgoing Conservative Government botched the timely appointment of an Ombudsman to replace Mr. Behrens. If you would care to examine the pre-appointment page on PACAC, there you will find the evidence of the House of Commons Administration. The reality is that PACAC went through the formal process of appointing a successor to Mr. Behrens, but the recommended candidate was blocked at Prime Minister/Cabinet Office level.

Periodically, questions about the Ombudsman are asked by backbench MPs in the House of Commons. The standard ministerial reply is “The Ombudsman is independent of government”. That has now, by virtue of government not recommending parliament’s preferred candidate to His Majesty, been firmly disproved. The Ombudsman can no longer be considered to be constitutionally independent.

Your Chief Executive will recalI I had a group telephone call with some of your Trustees some time ago and I am saddened that the Patients Association does not see the change of government as the opportunity to return to the issue of health service complaints which you so ably championed some 9 years ago and to which all the evidence since gathered points to a dramatic deterioration.

There are many fingers in the pie of complaint investigations other than PHSO including the Care Quality Commission, Health Safety Investigation Branch, Patient Safety Commissioner to name just three. There is no ‘joined up’ thinking and the whole process is in urgent need of reform.

May I ask you and your Board of Trustees to reconsider their position. At PHSO The Facts, we have an ample catalogue of evidence we can share with you and invite you to raise the issue now for the benefit of patients

From: Patients Association

Date: 3rd October 2024

Dear Mr Czarnetzki, 

Thank you for your follow-up message.

The Board’s decision was not to get involved in this specific campaign and as a board we carefully consider our involvement in any campaigns. As you’ve noted, we continue to be active in various initiatives that align with our mission to support patients.

Regarding the Ombudsman reform campaign, the Board has committed to updating our position statement on this matter. They are sympathetic to the issues raised and recognise the importance of the topic. However, as a charity, we must carefully consider all campaigns we engage in to ensure they align with our strategic objectives and resources.

I want to assure you that our decision does not mean we are unsympathetic to the points you are raising about Ombudsman reform. We recognise the historical context you’ve provided, including our past involvement in highlighting issues with the PHSO and the subsequent developments you’ve mentioned.

We remain committed to advocating for patients’ rights and improving healthcare systems. While we may not be actively campaigning on this specific issue at present, we are certainly interested in staying informed about developments in this area.

Patients Association 

From my perspective, we have the Continuing Healthcare Alliance making supportive noises in evidence to PACAC about PHSO and refusing to become involved in reform of complaint investigations. The Patients Association waits for the appointment of a new Ombudsman to deliver their ‘position statement’, despite a significant reduction in the number of complaints selected for investigation since they first reported the issue 9 years ago.

I don’t know what else can be done to bring the Patients Association back to the position it originally held – the one where it championed reform of the investigation of NHS complaints. PHSOthefacts have demonstrated a willingness to ensure the Patients Association is fully up to speed with the issues and I see little need for them to wait for a new Ombudsman who will still operate under outdated law, based on legislation originating from the 1960s, that is unfit for championing patient rights. 

I leave you to draw your own conclusions on this state of affairs.