Blatter, schmatter and candour

I came across Sloven’s 2013/4 Annual Report today in which they make the extraordinary claim that they are 100% compliant with Duty of Candour obligations (p121).

candour100% compliance? Eh? How can claiming LB died from natural causes in July 13, failing to disclose his full medical records until November 14 (via the coroner), accepting that his death was preventable in February 14 and then claiming again he died through natural causes in November 15, fit with duty of candour compliance? How can not sharing how Nico Reed died with his family for nearly two years be candour compliant? Or do learning disability related incidents stand outside this indicator?

Up until the last couple of months, I’d probably have written to the Board chair asking for some clarification on this. Not any more. The OCC report (OCCRAP) and their response to my obvious and fully justified distress about this report, on top of the various brain melt communications we’ve had with the now ex-Sloven Board chair/still-in-post CEO documented on these pages, have demonstrated that they have the power to do what they want. Including telling the most fanciful of lies and sticking them.

It’s simply one fucked up, archaic and sometimes corrupt system.

Justicequilt

 

 

Critical questions

bus

This afternoon, stuck on the Oxford Tube coming out of London, I was reading negative academic related stuff on my twitter timeline. Then my niece forwarded her undergraduate dissertation. She’s just completed a degree in linguistics at Leeds. For her dissertation she did a critical discourse analysis of four documents; Sloven’s public statement on the publication of the Verita report, their briefing document to Monitor, and letters from the CEO and Board Chair to us.

ally

I still don’t fully understand what transitivity is but non-apologies are pretty straightforward. In a kind of a random shambles; human, mother, (proud) aunt, campaigner, academic, raging woman, Oxford Tube captive and probably other identities, I read this dissertation. Between Hillingdon and Lewknor.

I was struck, in particular, by three things. First, it’s an example of an undergraduate dissertation that’s robust, rigorous, relevant and political. I’m impressed by both Ally’s work/focus and the encouragement and support she was obviously given by Leeds.

Second, (and I won’t say much about the content right now) the conclusions are clear, carefully evidenced and show that Sloven (and probably other NHS Foundation Trusts/local authorities) don’t operate anything approaching a whiff of candour, openness and transparency.

Third, if an undergraduate student can produce a clear, critical and well evidenced piece of research demonstrating this, why is so much meaningless talk still being talked?

OCCRAP, sometime and darkness

Found out today that the investigation into the actions of the unit staff member we referred to their disciplinary council in May 2014 is further delayed because new information* has emerged that will feed into this investigation. Wow. Every aspect of trying get accountability for what happened to LB has been delayed. Interminably.

The two forces of darkness, as I now see Sloven and OCC, are key delay players. Sloven explicitly, through non disclosure of documents, sitting on reports and generally being obstructive. OCC are slightly less obvious but do a cracking number in delay on the quiet. We now have to wait while their ‘independent’ consultant goes through the issues we raised about the ‘independent investigation’ they conducted into LB’s death without informing us. [For the ease of clarity here, I’ll call this report OCCRAP]. Apparently he’ll do this sometime next month.

[NB: In the delay game, there are no deadlines. Just vagueness. The only deadline so far is LB. And he had no say in that. Everyone (other than families) has  flexibility and resources to do what they want. Without remorse, reflection or hint of humanity].

The coroner sensibly said he wouldn’t read OCCRAP until it had been revised. Verita read it and are waiting to hear OCCs response to our response. Their report, (Verita (2) [sorry], has a delayed publication date which is now expected sometime in the next month or so. [Verita (2) officially started September 2014 for six months].

Our response to OCCRAP was, and remains; ‘Bin the fucker. Pile of toxic shite’. But this response is discounted. We have no power (underlined by the absence of challenge from those who could). So we were forced (bullied) into examining OCCRAP line by line and documenting inaccuracies. A process of phenomenal wastefulness, inefficiency and unspeakable distress.

We’re left wondering when did reputation (and vested interest) became the overriding consideration of ‘public’ bodies?

And how can so many in influential positions sleep so apparently contentedly through this? Justicequilt-207 *Thank you to the person/s who came forward with this information.

A letter, a picture and OCC

I got a holding letter from the Director of Adult Social Services today. Yesterday, still raging about their ‘independent review’ I drew a picture. The letter says the usual blather and bullshit. We did nothing wrong guv and a blatant attempt to reframe the review as an integral part of the Verita investigation. It includes a cracking non-apology that must rank up there in the all time top ten:

I recognise you are upset about this and I am sorry that you are upset.

image

Fieldwork, ferries and feedback

Justicequilt-194

Today involved five trains, two buses, two ferries and two taxis to get to the Isle of Wight and back for fieldwork. Pretty epic and a little bit unplanned (in terms of timings). But other than one wrong train, one wrong platform, a left tripod and couple of necessary sprints, it went like clockwork. We met some fab people. Learnt a chunk of stuff. And somehow were back in Oxford before 6pm.

Meanwhile, Verita were holding their ‘stakeholder’ event to feedback emerging findings from their broader review into LB’s death. In Oxford. The obvious suspects present (or their emissaries) plus some families.

Let’s just say that trundling along a pier, in almost sunshine, on an old London Underground train, was probably a good place to be in the circumstances. One that LB would have loved.

Justicequilt-195

OCC; the farce continues

Had a bit of a tense convo with the Director of Social Care on Monday. Their crap old report had been sent to Verita to be included in their broader review. And OCC’s legal team wrote in response to our questions about this review: “As we indicated it did not seem appropriate for the Council to seek your client’s involvement at that stage [during the review] given that she would have an opportunity to be involved with the Verita investigation and could make her comments in relation to the Council’s report as part of that.”

Wow.

So Sunday was spent correcting that crappy old report. A process that made me feel ill (I always feel crap these days but the work and emotion this task involved was too much). Around 4pm on Sunday I sent a shirty email saying I’d be invoicing the council for the work involved.

Anyway, the call on Monday was a waste of time. He wasn’t budging on his defence. It was fine to do such an investigation without our knowledge or involvement. It was fine to send the review to me by email out of the blue on a Monday morning. OCC had done nothing wrong. And the like. At one point he said in exasperation “You do things the wrong way, Sara. We offered you a meeting when we sent the report and you put your comments online for other people to read.”

Another brain melt moment.

Sorry Mr J. Putting stuff online is the only way to make visible the sneaky and deceitful practices that operate both within Sloven and OCC. Where families have little or no power. Given you commissioned and published this report without our knowledge, and were made to disclose it to us a few weeks ago, you really ain’t in a good place to talk about the wrong or right ways of doing stuff.

Reimbursement for my time was refused. With a classic and again dishonest statement;

Whilst I appreciate the time and effort you have spent reviewing the report, this report was an internal review to highlight any learning for Oxfordshire County Council.

Cluedo. And the OCC report

Today has been spent going through the OCC independent investigation. I ended up identifying 61 factual inaccuracies, comments and questions across the 23 pages. A foul, foul way to spend a sunday. For the diehard among you, the full list can be read here. Some summary thoughts (produced with George Julian) here:

ONE. How is it possible to review what happened to LB and the service provided to him without family input? How could this possibly produce any useful suggestions. And why weren’t we told about this review? If OCC were being transparent, seeking to learn, had nothing to hide, why not be upfront about it?
TWO. Given the obsessive focus both Sloven and OCC have demonstrated around my blog, wouldn’t the reviewer think about reading some of what I’d written? Both Verita and the Mazars have done so. It’s an information source after all. I’m not saying it’s an absolute truth but it presents our experiences and our thoughts and feelings about what happened. This knowledge could have made staff interviews more robust and led to a more coherent, accurate and useful report.
THREE. If a complaint is made about not being listened to and, in the process of making that complaint this point has to be stated more than once for accuracy, and then is inaccurately responded to, what hope is there? A reliance on ‘official’ documentation leaves this OCC investigation riddled with holes. Key things may not form part of documentation (deliberately or through incompetence). It’s naive and foolish to treat such documents as infallible.
FOUR. Who has a duty of care in this context? If, as OCC seem to be claiming here, I wasn’t coping why did they not demonstrate any concern for LB’s wellbeing? He barely features in the report.
FIVE. The report is littered with erroneous ‘althoughs’ and ‘howevers’. This isn’t a comment on the writing style and accuracy for its own sake; but these seem to be used to deliberately mislead the reader, to lead them to biased conclusions, even when evidence doesn’t stack up to support it.

Funnily enough (not funny really), the defence letter we received from OCC’s legal department presents spurious arguments like “this would seem to be an entirely reasonable response given the Council’s very high expectations…” throughout. This makes my internal organs fold in on themselves and turn to liquid.

SIX. Why does everything take so long, and need to be so bad before anyone steps up? It feels like the report paints a picture of failing parent, challenging son, and dedicated and compassionate staff who are constantly rebutted. Why is there no recognition or understanding of what we were experiencing? And why? And why the apparent surprise that we suddenly had LB admitted to STATT? Why did no one involved at the time listen to what we were saying?

SEVEN. What relevance is A4e support to this review? The focus on this in the report  either indicates the independent reviewer’s (mis)understanding of Direct Payments and/or is another attempt to pass the buck away from OCC and paint me in a negative light. My refusal to use their ‘service’ is mentioned in at least three places in the report. In some detail. Why? I’m left wondering if my  refusal to use their ‘service’ was a financial? political? problem. An additional bit of card marking. Adding to the rest.

EIGHT. Verita 1 was clear that discharge planning was not advanced (by any reasonable person’s standards) and yet this review suggests it was almost complete (largely through the efforts of the Care Manager who, as we are told in two places, came back off annual leave in April and got straight on with organising the professionals meeting). Well she didn’t. And I’d probably have felt more disposed towards her if she’d seen LB more than once while he was in the unit and attended more than two of the weekly meetings across the 107 days he was there really. Again, whose truth counts?

NINE. Perhaps the most disturbing element of this report is the undercurrent of parent blame. Implicitly and explicitly blame permeates the report. Well it’s drenched in it. It reads less as an investigation of OCC’s processes and involvement in what happened to LB and more an attempt to paint a picture of a flaky parent who  repeatedly refused countless offers of support and help and forged a resolutely independent (and flawed) path down direct payment alley. In the vein of “there’s always something or other with Mr Neary”.

George commented; “The reference to Direct Payments and choices, pretty much could have been written as ‘Inspector shrugs shoulders and says in a loud disgruntled voice: “Well, they wanted a Direct Payment, they made their bed so let them lie in it”; OCC 1 and OCC 2 hug and all three leave stage right’.”

Possibly (though it’s impossible to really judge given the number of contenders) the most damning statement in the review comes towards the end;

I consider it important to note that this [families choosing to use direct payments] also means that those families then have responsibility for the choices they make.

Ah. It was the mother what done it. In the kitchen. With the direct payment and a full time job.

Classy.

Dealing with this report, from the moment I received it with no warning by email a few weeks ago, to the lengthy and tortuous work today, has been intensely harrowing, time consuming and distressing. How OCC, like Sloven, can continue to extract more from the fragments of our crushed lives, in seedy and self serving attempts to cover their own backs is just barbaric.
He died.

I wasn’t listened to.

Justicequilt-187 Just back from attending the 13th NNDR conference in Bergen, I’ve  picked up the OCC investigation into LB’s death (that came like a hammer blow a few weeks ago).  This is something I naively hoped we could just say ‘Er, please bin it. It’s a pile of (harrowing) shite.’ It turns out we need to detail the inaccuracies in it. An awful, time consuming and beyond unacceptable task.

Tonight the tears started on p5. A summary of the complaint I made to Sloven after LB was admitted to the unit in March 2013. A summary of five of the points that the complaint made and the shonky responses to it. 0cc4 But there weren’t five points. There were six.

12.4.13 My email to the social care director: image On 15.4.13, the Sloven complaints person sent me this email and I responded, the same day, again flagging up the sixth point. image 0cc20 Prophetic words and dripping irony. I wasn’t listened to. The seriousness of the situation was not appreciated. I wasn’t listened to in making the complaint either. Clearly. And OCC deliberately didn’t listen in writing this craphole ‘report’ based on half truths and inaccuracies.

Which bit of ‘our beautiful son is dead because you arrogant, bullying, dismissive bastards refused to listen’ don’t you get? And why the fuck am I having to endure this soul destroying task?

Oxfordshire Conty Concil.

Having been a cheerful swearer with vague, unarticulated boundaries (that have raised some eyebrows among some family, friends and colleagues) over the years I’m being pushed into (almost) using language I never dreamed I’d use.

Oxfordshire County Council’s legal department have replied to our concerns about the ‘independent’ investigation into LB’s death that emerged a few weeks ago. (We had no idea this report was being conducted, it’s full of inaccuracies and LB’s health and social care records shouldn’t have been shared with a third party without our knowledge).

The response begins with a rehash of the terms of reference of the ‘investigation’. In a howling example of irony these include; ‘to review the contact between adult social care, LB’s family and school’.

There follows a shedload of rubbish statements. For example:

occ

What a peculiar statement. An all powerful ‘Council’ doing stuff rather than individuals. OCC senior staff should probably have a quick read of Chris Hatton’s latest post about bureaucracy. OCC (and their ‘independent’ consultant) have a habit of stating what wasn’t the case. Like stating in the report that I wasn’t present at a meeting after detailing who was. Detailing what wasn’t strikes me as a bit of a warning flag in terms of trying to understand what’s going on in both the construction of the report and the subsequent defence of it.

The letter states that the OCC report was commissioned by the Director of Social and Community Services in July 2014 (and then was delayed by the police investigation) before the Verita report was commissioned.  As the tender process for the NHS England review was underway in June 2014 and Verita awarded the contract in July this is simply inaccurate. Post-hoc rationalisation. Wrongness upon wrongness.

occ

Wow. OCC taking ‘the dog ate my homework’ to new levels. This is just nonsense. Almost laughable but of course it ain’t. In some sort of unacknowledged hinterland (a space occupied by many families I’m sure) we now have two choices. Leave this ‘report’ as a public document inaccurately detailing events, to be potentially used in LB’s inquest and other arenas. Or suck up the emotional distress (and time) of carefully picking through the lengthy document to edit and correct seedy, inaccurate and self serving statements. That seems fair.

The final statement in the letter responds to the confidential status of the report. It sends my brain into a spin, given the context.

occ

??????????      ???????????     ???????????     ??????????

I’m left raging. As always. Well and wondering if OCC really have a legal department or does someone like the independent consultant do a bit of moonlighting.

We are seeking legal advice.

 

Pasta, cheese and epilepsy

I found out this week from an unusually humane ‘official’ source that the Sloven staff disciplinary actions for a chunk of staff were very thorough and a range of actions were taken. Disciplinary actions for another ‘type’ of staff were deemed unnecessary. These staff had done what they could reasonably be expected to do and this had been agreed by an external bod.

‘Mmm.’ I said. ‘Good to hear it was a thorough process, but odd about the latter decision given we referred a member (of favoured staff) and this has been the subject of serious investigation since last spring.’

Nothing like an equal playing field.

The more I read or get told about what happened to LB, the more I despair. Sloven Towers seems to have anti candour armour with Deny, Deceive and Delay stitched throughout. The 3Ds. Allowing no space for remorse, sadness or open reflections about what happened. Reading the various reports/records/FOI documents, there was no epilepsy. No seizure activity.

This is core CIPOLD fodder really. LB was ‘learning disabled’ so his right to any other diagnosis was compromised from the off. He had to wait the best part of two years to get an epilepsy diagnosis (despite two ambulance trips to A&E and various other reported seizures involving paramedics). While the earlier absence type seizures were puzzling the tonic clonic numbers that followed left no doubt.  A tonic clonic seizure is, as anyone who has seen someone experiencing one, clearly an epileptic seizure. A harrowing experience.

LB’s eventual diagnosis was pretty low key. Some 1950s medication prescribed by an A&E doc, an appointed neurologist, but no invitation to attend ‘First Fit’ clinic at the John Radcliffe Hospital. A handwritten note querying this is scrawled on hospital records but notes are notes. Not action. Maybe he’d had too many ‘first fits’ to qualify for entry to that particular club. Or maybe the learning disability label meant such an invitation was inconceivable. Who knows. It didn’t happen.

Soon after LB died someone from Young Epilepsy contacted me about speaking at some school related event about epilepsy. During the telephone conversation, when it became apparent that LB had been at a special school, the invitation was rescinded and the call ended. Wow. I thought. Sitting at work, receiver in hand. Denied epilepsy legitimacy in death as well as life. Wow.

The canyon that separates ‘official’, publicly funded, engagement with what happened and our experience remains immense. One of Tom’s school mates said to him this week that coming round to our house now is kind of like having pasta without cheese.

I so know what he means.

Imagining Sloven or Oxfordshire County Council (and probably other) peeps reading this, I can hear them bleating “There’s no such thing as cheese or pasta. He’s talking rubbish,” without missing a beat.

Because LB didn’t matter.

old pics (1)