A PANEL has identified “significant weaknesses and inefficiencies” within the Health Department’s complaints procedures, including a “failure to place the patient at the heart of its processes”.
A States of Jersey Complaints Board upheld a complaint against the Health Minister on the grounds that the patient – referred to only as Mrs X – had been treated in a way that was unjust, oppressive and discriminatory.
According to the findings of a hearing held on 25 January and published yesterday, Mrs X’s complaint centred on access to specialist care, communication from health care providers, and the Health Department’s complaints process.
The board criticised the department’s “unfulfilled undertakings”, the “cancellation of meetings at short notice”, “inadequately briefed” staff, and “somewhat patronising” correspondence.
The panel also criticised the fact that once Mrs X had been categorised as a “complainant”, it “appeared to have a material effect on her clinical care”.
It was noted that complaints submitted by the woman had been referenced during a medical appointment, which the manager of the Patient Experience Team apologised for during the hearing.
The board described it as “unacceptable” and “indefensible” that the Health Department had said that no further steps could be taken in Mrs X’s clinical care until the complaints process had been completed.
The panel said that this “would require a full explanation as to what bearing the outcome of its consideration of the department’s complaint handling could possibly have in the context of the patient’s clinical care”.
“All patients were entitled to receive the best clinical care reasonably possible in a timely manner,” they said.
In its recommendations, the board said that it had been “tacitly acknowledged that complainants might be regarded somewhat differently in the context of the provision of clinical care”.
“This would appear to be undeniable in this particular case, and reinforced by allegations that the publication of this board’s findings would likewise delay clinical care decisions.”
During the hearing, the chief nurse extended an apology to Mrs X on behalf of the Health Department for the “trauma and inconvenience”.
The board has made several recommendations for improvements, including a suggestion that the Health Department “review the nature and relevance of all communications to ensure that these focus on patient care and do not inadvertently adopt an unnecessary tone which could be misconstrued as patronising or condescending”.
The board also recommended that patients should be allocated a dedicated liaison officer to “ensure ongoing and clear communication between the department and the patient, both in respect of the complaints process and the clinical care plan” to “ensure that clinical care was not adversely affected or disrupted by the complaints process”.
