|
|
HOME ABOUT BRENDA KEATS HOUSE THE OVERDOSE LIFE AND DEATH IN CAMDEN DEATH AND THE MAIDEN THE ENFIELD SONNETS THE PAIN CLINIC THE FORDWYCH HOUSE EXTRACT NEW POEMS PROTESTS ART GALLERY REVIEWS LINKS |
|
BARRY TEBB LIFE AND DEATH IN CAMDEN
SIXTIES PRESS
|
||||
|
For the staff of Leeds Mental Health NHS Trust, where care is the best there is
Liars begin by imposing on others, but end by deceiving themselves Jowett of Balliol
What is said remains forgotten behind what is said in what is heard Jacques Lacan
Cover photograph of Brenda Williams outside the Royal Free Hospital, London sat in silent protest at the loss of her care © Eamer O’Keefe 2005
PROPOSED CLOSURE OF DAY CENTRES
I forwarded this letter as a question to be circulated at the meeting on the 21st of July of the Camden Mental Health Liaison Group. Councillor John Rolfe refused the question, stating that my criticisms of Tulloch Kemp and other unnamed people constituted possible libel. This is outrageous and untrue – it is no more than fair comment and I have had assurances to this effect from a reputable journalist. I hope that you will find things of interest and concern in my question.
Sir
I was aghast to hear that the vital Jamestown, Crossfields and Camden Mind’s day centres, which care for around 500 of the borough’s most severely mentally ill, are to close if plans revealed by the Social Services’ Press Office go ahead.
The rationale used as an excuse is a report of the Social Exclusion Unit but this simply says that the mentally ill should not be excluded from the mainstream of society, e.g. they should not suffer stigma. The Council carelessly conflates this with the DWP’s intention to move 1 million of the less ill on incapacity benefit into work over the next decade.
The 500 users of the centres are almost entirely on disability living allowance, i.e. the much more serious end of the spectrum.
Tulloch Kemp, Chief Executive of New Directions Camden, which runs all but the Mind Centre, defends the policy and says these patients are becoming ‘institutionalised’ when in fact the centres support them to live in their own homes and the network of friends established over years helps them to live and to stay alive.
The suicide level in Camden (already the highest in the UK – 1 suicide every ten days) is shameful and reflects badly but accurately on the Camden and Islington Mental Health and Social Care Trust – a ‘fused’ board made up of Camden Social Services and the Mental Health Trust. The proposed closures are barbaric and stem from a clinical ineptitude that leaves me breathless. A GP friend of mine in Camden asked pointedly: ‘And just what work are these patients supposed to do and who will look after them if the centres close?’ Who indeed?
Tulloch Kemp is content to co-operate with this policy rather than fight it. In other words he will stand by as patients die by their own hand. He should resign, as should all those in power who support this truly off-the-wall onslaught on the most vulnerable.
The ‘four working groups’ set up ‘to look at how to change services to encourage recovery and social inclusion’ do not include a GP or a psychiatrist.
What about risk assessment?
Recovery cannot be ‘encouraged’ – its not a foot ball team to be cheered onto victory. The whole ‘best value for money review of day services’ is GARBAGE. I have been a carer at the ‘hard end’ of mental health since the eighties. The level of illness among patients at the day centres is only slightly above that of those on acute wards. The so called ‘STAR WORKERS’ have been described to me by one patient as ‘ Like the Gestapo.’ My message to Camden Council is STOP IT AND STOP IT NOW.
Barry Tebb Trustee – Survivors’ Poetry, London Publisher – Sixties Press 89 Connaught Road Sutton, Surrey SM1 3PJ Web: www.barrytebb.co.uk www.criticalobs.co.uk From Councillor Heather M. Thompson, Lib Dem Shadow Chair of Social Services, Camden Council
Mental Health Day Centres – Jamestown, Crossfield & Mind in Camden
Yesterday I spoke on the telephone to Kevin Jerman of Social Services, who assured me that all the day centres are currently open. He told me that the purpose of the current review is to establish whether clients would be better served by mainstream services within which they could be enabled to become less institutionalised and to better fulfil their interests and aspirations. Self-evidently there are some clients for whom this could be beneficial.
I nevertheless believe that there are many clients for whom this strategy is quite simply not viable.
Almost all people need a secure social environment where their needs are understood. Having suffered from depression and anxiety neurosis, I am profoundly aware that there are times when the resulting problems and distress can be shared only with people who have suffered from the same conditions.
For many of our mental health clients, the day centres are the necessary secure social environment. Were they to be closed, I am entirely sure that there would be an increase in suicides and hospital admissions.
The availability of mainstream services for those ready to benefit from them should never be allowed to preclude the continuation of day centre provision throughout the borough for those for whom they are a prerequisite for life in the community, or indeed for living at all.
THE FIGHT FOR THE RIGHT TO CARE THE CASE OF BRENDA WILLIAMS
15 January 2005
The Right Honourable Chris Smith Chair, The Committee for Standards in Public Life
Dear Chris Smith
I need your help. You are not my constituency MP but you are MP for part of the area covered by the Camden and Islington Mental Health and Social Care Trust.
My ex-wife (the poet Brenda Williams, who suffers from recurrent severe depression) lost her care because we campaigned vigorously against the policies of the Chief Executive Erville Millar and the Chair, Professor David Taylor (cutting beds, trying to close a vital day hospital) Our campaign worked, the day hospital remains but we will never be forgiven. We found Millar and Taylor were breaking planning law, whistle blew to Camden Council and the building was delayed for eighteen months.
Even more seriously it is my belief that Millar intervened in the expedited discharge of Anthony Hardy and used his power to remove him from the care of one consultant (who insisted on Hardy remaining) to another, who agreed his discharge.
Debbie Abrahams OBE of CHAI and Sir Ian were sufficiently convinced of my argument that they considered mounting a formal investigation in the part management played in Hardy’s discharge but they were stopped, allegedly to prevent ‘duplication of an ongoing investigation.’
An agreement was reached in October 2004 for Brenda’s care to be restored. It took two months for us to see Dr. R. (our choice backed by Camden PCT, which brokered the agreement) but the promise for Brenda to return to Fordwych Road Day Hospital was reneged on and as a direct result Brenda seriously overdosed. I believe Taylor and Millar, since they took power, have acted with no concern except to increase their power base, consultants are ‘leaned on’ to make decisions in the clinical field at Millar and Taylor’s behest. Their ‘enforcer’ is George Platts, an aggressive, insensitive bully whose email to the PCT banning Brenda from Fordwych Road Day Hospital for the rest of her life for making a complaint when she was a patient there directly triggered her overdose.
The Ombudsman have begun the formal investigation of two complaints. They are excellent and thorough but to be so they cannot act as a rapid-reaction force. It may take eighteen months to begin a formal investigation.
Rosie Winterton, Minister for Adult Mental Health, tried to intervene but was stopped by John Hutton, not something I guessed but which I was informed by letter. At 63 I am primary carer to Brenda and to our son who, after a brilliant beginning as a King’s Scholar at Eton and a 2:1 at Balliol developed the most difficult-to-treat type of paranoid schizophrenia and is a detained patient in Leeds. His care is excellent. If you read my article One Carer’s Story in Kith and Kin the case is outlined.
I am formally asking you as Chair of the Committee for Standards in Public Life to investigate Erville Millar and Professor David Taylor. Their ‘record’ speaks for itself and so, in another way does mine.
Yours sincerely Barry Tebb
14 January 2005
Dear Mr Tebb
You reported to me on 10th January 2005 that it was agreed at a recent meeting with Camden PCT Commissioning staff that Brenda Williams would be admitted to Felix Brown Day Hospital for two weeks and then to Fordwych House. You were concerned that the Care Trust was now turning back on what had initially been agreed. I can confirm that I have now contacted the relevant senior managers in both the Care Trust and in the Camden PCT Commissioning Department and can report the following.
Both George Platts and Colin Plant have reported to me that the Care Trust had not agreed a place at Fordwych House for Brenda. I was informed that Brenda’s attendance at Felix Brown Day Hospital would enable continued treatment by Dr. R., and that Dr. R. does not have places at Fordwych House. Furthermore, Felix Brown offers art therapy, which is the service that Brenda and her GP requested and which was supported by the assessment undertaken by Dr. R.
I have also contacted Caroline Blair and she too has confirmed that the Commissioning Department did not agree that a place would be offered at Fordwych House. Caroline explained that the Commissioning Department would not be in a position to know what places are available there, and that the Care Trust as providers are responsible for Brenda’s care plan and placements.
Should you remain concerned about the reason provided above as to why a place is not offered, at this time, at Fordwych House then you can write to the Chief Executive, Erville Millar, who will ensure that your concerns are formally investigated and responded to. I enclose a leaflet on the service provided by the Independent Complaints Advocacy Service (ICAS), should you wish to avail of this service.
Yours sincerely Mary O'Leary
Patient Advice and Liaison Service Manager Camden and Islington Mental Health and Social Care Trust and Camden Primary Care Trust
19 January 2005
Dear Mr Tebb
Contact with the PCT Commissioners regarding Brenda Williams
I am writing to you with respect to your calls to the PCT offices regarding Ms Brenda Williams and her access to treatment provided by the Camden and Islington Mental Health and Social Care Trust (MHSCT). The PCT has been involved in this case for some time now, and I believe that the commissioning managers have worked hard to provide you with information about access to services. However, the PCT role in this case is very limited and I make this clear below. I am also aware that you have been speaking to a number of people in the PCT about this case. This is unhelpful and can create confusion; and, I make clear below the arrangement for you to contact commissioners.
Role of the PCT The PCT was first contacted about this case at the end of September 2004 through David Hobbs at the Strategic Health Authority (SHA), with a very specific query owing to the fact that Brenda lives in Westminster. The view of the Care Trust was that her services should be provided by local services. While, this is generally the preferred model, owing to close links with the local Social Services Department, the PCT agreed that, as Brenda is registered with a Camden GP, we would be prepared to commission Camden and Islington Mental Health and Social Care Trust to provide NHS services.
Role of the MHSCT The MHSCT then had the responsibility of accept the GP referral and make a clinical assessment of Brenda’s health needs. Following this, she has been offered services.
The PCT has quite a specific role in relation to this case, which we have discharged, and I believe from previous communication with the PCT you are content with the PCT decision. The PCT does not have a role in either assessing individual health need, nor with the day-to-day management of the MHSCT. If you are unhappy with the clinical assessment or the services, then you need to speak to the Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS) and/or the service manager (George Platts) and follow the complaints process. Similarly, if you are unhappy with the PCT, you may talk to PALS or follow the complaints process.
Future Communication with PCT Commissioners
Given the PCT role, I cannot see that you have further reason to contact PCT staff about this case. However, should you need to do so, then you should contact the mental health commissioning team: Caroline Stanford and Charles Oseghare or via the switchboard If they are not available, their voicemail will provide you with alternative contact numbers. If there are any problems, the accountable senior manager is Lorraine College. In particular, you should have no need to contact Caroline Blair, whose job changed last October and she no longer has a role with regard to mental health commissioning. I have instructed Caroline Blair to have no further involvement in this case and that all calls to her and this office will be referred to Caroline Stanford or Charles Oseghare. Accordingly, you should make any further queries as indicated.
I trust this clarifies any future communication regarding this case.
Yours sincerely Stephen Conroy
Director of Commissioning & Modernisation Camden Primary Care Trust
20 January 2005
Dear Barry Tebb
Thank you for your letter of 15 January which I read carefully - and for the various Sixties Press books - but I fear Parliamentary rules do not allow me to intervene on your behalf because you don’t live in my constituency of Islington South and Finsbury. You have clearly struggled to achieve a satisfactory outcome to your complaints, and I’m sure the Ombudsman will diligently investigate all your concerns. Although you have sent a copy of your letter to your own MP, Tom Brake, I am forwarding everything to him with a note offering to ‘back up’ any representations he may make on your behalf if he feels it would be helpful. I’m sorry that I cannot personally do more. With best wishes
Yours sincerely Rt Hon Chris Smith MP
21 January 2005
To Dr. John Carrier, Chair and Mr. Rob Larkman, Chief Executive, Camden Primary Care Trust
Dear John Carrier and Rob Larkman
I received two letters on two consecutive days from two of your employees. I doubt if either should have been sent at all and at 63 I cannot recall any two letters – sent almost simultaneously – which so angered me and I wonder how if either if you were as I am, sole carer for both my ex-wife Brenda Williams and our son Isaiah, how you yourselves would have reacted to such correspondence.
Letter from Stephen Conroy, Director of Commissioning Counsellor
While I have been fighting single-handedly over the last 19 months I have had little support and that I did receive I valued highly. First on that list must come Dr. Doris Lister and her in-house Henrietta. Their help has been consistent and unhesitating over many months.
I think Mr. Conroy has far exceeded his brief. In paragraph 1 I take particular exception to his statement of my having spoken ‘to a number of people in the PCT about this case which is unhelpful and creates confusion.’
I found my so speaking extremely helpful and I had long guessed that Mr. Conroy’s keeping his distance from this very serious and high profile case suggests - as it turned out – that he was deeply hostile to our cause. Perhaps his close working alliance with Erville Millar of CMHSCT has made him forget that you and not Mr. Millar employ him.
I welcome help and advice but I will not tolerate being lectured to and hectored by Mr. Conroy in the bullying blistering tones I associate with Mr. Millar and his managers. Paragraph 2 is mere padding. Paragraph 3: relations between PCT’s and acute trusts are nationally undergoing a sea change, as you are aware. Because of their funding role PCT’s can very much input into how acute trusts provide the care PCT’s pay for and this is as it should be.
The clinical assessment of Brenda has been done at great length and in great depth by her consultant, Dr. R. Charles Oseghare, your senior Mental Health Commissioner, in a call to me said that the PCT’s agenda was to ensure Brenda’s care was properly provided as it was properly commissioned. Is the phrase ‘patient choice’ foreign to Mr. Conroy’s vocabulary?
Referring me back to Messrs Platts and Millar or to PALS is totally inappropriate. I have recently asked Chris Smith MP, in his role as Chair of the Committee for Standards in Public Life, to consider whether there is a case to be answered by Mr. Millar and his Chair, Professor Taylor. Mr Platts, as I said in my letter to Chris Smith, is their enforcer.
Mr. Conroy assumes he can ban me from speaking to Caroline Blair, and thus take away one of our few supports – and this at an especially difficult time, only two weeks after Brenda overdosed.
This ban is illegal. I ran it informally before a member of the staff of the Health Ombudsman who said, as myself believed, that it was clearly ultra vires. Mr. Conroy does not seem to have cleared it with either of you before sending it and I sense Erville Millar’s deadly touch throughout.
For Mr. Conroy to ‘insist’ that Caroline Blair should have nothing further to do with me I find outrageous. I lost faith in Caroline Stanford when she failed to get a time scale for Brenda’s restoration of care in the October agreement. I spoke to Anita Wadhawen, the Minister’s Mental Health Policy Lead, who said that Miss Stanford was clearly out of her depth. Further months of waiting and a serious overdose could have been avoided if Caroline Blair had been in charge. Charles Oseghare has needed constant pressure from various people, including myself, to be as involved as he promised to be. He seems very unwilling to confront CMHSCT with their shortcomings, continual bad faith and outright lying. He should never have suggested I contact Mary O’Leary of PALS. I know her well of old to be a close ally of Mr. Millar and if you, as it would seem, pay half of her wages then this is certainly neglected in her letter which, with Mr. Conroy’s, appears to be totally on Erville Millar’s side. She is supposed to head PALS which is supposed to help patients – I’d be glad to know if she has ever taken the side of any patient against decision of Mr. Millar and her staff. I doubt very much if such a thing has ever happened.
I have had dealing with Mary O’Leary over a couple of years. When Charles Oseghare insisted I contact her I feared the worst and was proved right. Her letter is breathtakingly inept. Paragraph 3 totally refutes what Charles Oseghare said to me. The course of the call was that a referral to Fordwych Road Day Hospital would be the most likely outcome of the preliminary assessment process already ongoing (12 hrs. with Dr. R.) and a final assessment on January 10th at Felix Brown Day Hospital. Two weeks there would in all probability lead to a period at Fordwych Road where Brenda has received care for 7˝ years. Is continuity of care not relevant as well as patient choice and carer input? Caroline was not present during the call.
To publicly discipline Caroline, as Mr. Conroy is appearing to do, is outrageous and presumably because I have praised her to you and to others. I think Dr. Lister’s original referral to Fordwych House Day Hospital should be agreed immediately and the matter enforced by the PCT. I think Mr. Conroy should be better informed and not so ready to do Mr. Millar’s bidding and that he should know about and respect The European Convention on Human Rights and Standard Six of the National Health Mental Health Care Service Frame. He is hardly acting ‘in the spirit of the NHS’ but more as Mr. Millar’s mouthpiece.
This is a formal complaint against both Mr. Conroy and Ms. O’Leary. I have kept it ‘in house’ out of respect for both of you and the Trust’s reputation.
Yours sincerely Barry Tebb
7 February 2005
David Behan, Chief Executive Commission for Social Care Inspection
Dear David Behan
I sent you my book Kith and Kin today about the failure of Camden and Islington MHSCT to provide care for Brenda Williams. My book does not mention the absolute dereliction by Heather Schroeder of her duty of care in the matter. A letter of mine sent many weeks ago has been ignored and dozens of calls to the executive office over more than a year received the same treatment. Both CHAI and the Ombudsman are conducting formal investigations into the mental health aspects of the case but I think you might look at Ms. Schroeder’s abysmal record of cowardice, inhumanity and lack of basic compassion in a such serous matter where the GP, Doris Lister and myself as primary carer have been effectively abandoned to care for such a vulnerable patient apart from the magnificent work of CHAI and the Health Ombudsman.
I neither know nor care what investigative process, formal or informal, you choose to employ but the matter cannot be left until April 1st when you begin to work in tandem with CHAI. I hope you will see this as a desperate plea for help which is what it is.
Heather Schroeder’s predecessor, Jane Held, left her post abruptly in December 2003 after publicly rebuking Erville Millar for interfering in a Social Services matter e.g. issues around ‘care banding’ raised by Brenda at a meeting of Camden Council. Jane Held’s departure was a ‘sealed lips’ agreement which I think needs unsealing possibly via the new freedom of information act.
Yours sincerely Barry Tebb
17 February 2005
Dear Mr Tebb
Further to my letter of 21st January 2005 your complaint has been investigated and I can now let you have a response.
Your complaint has been investigated by Keith Marshall, Director of Human Resources, Camden Primary Care Trust. I can appreciate your concern for Ms Williams and the treatment she receives. I hope that you do understand the differences between the PCT which “commissions” healthcare in a given area, and the Acute Trust or the Mental Health and Social Care Trust, who provide clinical services within this allocation, as this is the context within which we operate, and in which your complaint must be viewed.
I will try to address each issue detailed in your letter. It appears that the first issue concerns Stephen Conroy's letter of 19th January 2005. 1) Objection to Stephen Conroy telling you that writing to several different staff can create confusion
I understand that there was no intention to ban you from writing to other people in the PCT. The remark was made to suggest that forwarding your complaint through one accountable person would ensure better co-ordination and a swifter response.
2) Being bullied and hectored by Mr. Conroy
His letter has been looked into and we find no evidence in it to suggest he is bullying or hectoring you.
3) “Paragraph 2 of the letter is mere padding”
Paragraph 2 attempts to put the actions of the PCT into a context of our duties and responsibilities towards our residents, but more specifically towards a patient who lives in another PCTs area.
4) PCTs can input into how the Acute Trusts provide the care
The PCT has responsibility for commissioning services and monitoring whether the Acute Trust meets qualitative and quantitative standards. It does not have responsibility for decisions made about individual patients and of individual care plans. 5) Mr. Conroy assumes he can stop me from speaking to Caroline Blair. The bar is illegal. Stephen Conroy “instructs Caroline Blair to have nothing more to do with me.”
The PCT is free to determine which of its staff will talk to the public and whether a member of the public will be able to talk to its staff. In this case, as Caroline Blair is not working in the area of the Mental Health Commissioning anymore, any contact with her would be a waste of time for both of you.
The other complaints in your letter seem to be referring to Mary O’Leary, and our response to these is as follows:
1. Para 3 of Mary O’Leary’s letter conflicts with what Charles Oseghare told me on December 23rd.
Mary O’Leary liaised with Charles Oseghare, Caroline Blair, George Platts and Colin Plant with regards to your concerns that a place at Fordwych House had been agreed at a meeting in October 2004. They all informed Mary that they had no knowledge of any such agreement. Charles Oseghare is sorry if, during his telephone conversation with you on 23rd December, you believed that the Commissioning Department could arrange for a place to be available at Fordwych House, as this is not the case. The Care Trust, as provider, is solely responsible for Ms Williams care plan.
2. She is supposed to head PALS, which is supposed to help patients. I’d be glad to know if she has ever taken the side of any patient against a decision of Mr Millar and his staff.
Ms O’Leary could find no evidence that a place at Fordwych House had been agreed and was unable to assist you in pursuing your concern that the Care Trust had gone back on what was agreed. Mary is very sorry that you concluded that this meant she is uncaring, as this is certainly not true. If she had found evidence that an agreement had been reneged upon she would have been more than happy to take your side in ensuring that the agreement was honoured.
I sincerely hope that this response adequately addresses the concerns that you have raised. I do apologise for any misunderstanding or distress caused to you. If you would like to discuss this matter further or need clarification on the outcome of this investigation then please do not hesitate to contact Keith Marshall or you may write to me within the next two months. In the meantime I enclose a leaflet on how to pursue your complaint if you wish to.
Yours sincerely Rob Larkman
Chief Executive Camden Primary Care Trust
28 February 2005
Mr. Dave Lee Strategy Director Camden & Islington Mental Health and Social Care Trust
Dear Mr. Lee I gather you told CHAI that Brenda had not been offered a place at Felix Brown. The offer was made to me by Charles Oseghare, Senior Mental Health Commissioner at Camden PCT, and it was part of a ‘package’ – two weeks at Felix Brown to be followed by a transfer to Fordwych Road. Charles now denies he ever made such a call but if he didn’t why did Brenda give up her protest on the very same day? Nothing except an agreement including a place at Fordwych Road would ever make her give up, as you well know.
Charles also said that the two week Felix Brown placement would follow immediately after the assessment interview, which I attended with Brenda. Katie Clayton (acting Felix Brown manager) said she knew nothing of this and there would be a further week’s delay. The same day George Platts sent Charles an email (read to me by Caroline Blair) saying Brenda would never be given a place at Fordwych Road, because she made a high level complaint while she was there. This email (as I warned everyone at the time) is part of the chain of evidence and needs to be forwarded to CHAI along with the case file.
Brenda’s overdose followed immediately, this was no way Caroline’s fault but entirely George Platts’. His ‘decision’ to impose a life ban was illegal and such bans do not operate anywhere else in the NHS.
I shall continue with my vigilance, as will Brenda with her protest, until that place at Fordwych Road – three times referred to for by Dr. Lister, is forthcoming.
Yours sincerely Barry Tebb
16 March 2005
Healthcare Commission
Dear Mr Tebb
Re: Decision from the initial review of your complaint: Ms Brenda Williams
Following my letter of February 22nd 2005.1 am writing to inform you of my decision in respect of your case. In coming to this decision I have reviewed the documents received and sought clarification where necessary. In accordance with our decision making process a manager has approved my decision.
Your case has raised three issues, which I will deal with in turn:
You were unhappy that because Brenda was a resident of Westminster she could not access the services provided by Camden & Islington Mental Health & Social Care Trust
In your original complaint;you stated that you were dissatisfied because Ms Williams was unable to access the services of Fordwych Road Day Hospital. Ms Williams was being classed as a resident of Westminster and therefore if she wished to be re assessed to access this facility then this had to be completed by Westminster Primary Care Trust (PCT). You were angered by this boundary issue, as Westminster PCT would not be able to offer places at Fordwych Road, a facility that you feel is imperative to sustaining Ms Williams’s health.
On August 20th 2004 North Central London Strategic Health Authority wrote to you to clarify the position with regard to patients who wish to cross boundaries. David Hobbs stated that so long as Ms Williams was registered with a GP who was part of Camden PCT then Camden PCT would be responsible for commissioning care for Ms Williams.
Brenda had recently registered with a GP who was part of Camden PCT it was therefore established that Camden PCT would commission care for Brenda.
I have decided to take no further action on this issue because this matter has been resolved locally and Brenda has since had care commissioned from Camden & Islington Mental Health & Social Care Trust as requested.
You felt that the “art therapy” was needed by Ms Williams though she had not previously been assessed as needing this type of care
Within the letter dated August 20th 2005 from David Hobbs of North Central London Strategic Health Authority he refers to recent discussions about Ms Williams where there was a difference of view about the level of clinical support Ms Williams needs, he went on to state this was a matter for the clinicians involved.
This issue has now been resolved as an appointment was organised with Dr. Lister who subsequently made a referral to Camden PCT, Head of Mental Health Commissioning for Brenda to be permitted to have art therapy.
Art Therapy was considered by Ms Williams General Practitioner (GP) to be the only benefit Ms Williams had from any psychiatric service.
I have decided to take no further action on this issue because this matter has been resolved locally and it has been agreed that art therapy services would be beneficial to Brenda.
You feel that an “art therapy” place for Brenda at Fordwych Road is being withheld/obstructed because of previous complaints/protests which have been made
Following a referral from Dr Raven an appointment was made for you to attend an assessment with Katie Clayton, Acting Day Hospital Manager/lead art therapist at Felix Brown Day Hospital. Following the assessment a place was offered at the Day Hospital. It was explained in a letter dated January 10th 2005 written by George Platts that the first two weeks at the day hospital would be treated as an assessment period. At the end of that time a care plan would be offered to Brenda, which would include art therapy among other activities.
You state that you had received a phone call to the contrary stating that after the initial 2 week period at Felix Brown, Ms Williams would be able to attend Fordwych Road. Mr Platts confirms that this is not the case and that he is confident that attendance at Felix Brown Day Hospital combined with outpatient appointments with Dr Raven are a good alternative to Fordwych Road, offering a similar range of services. It was hoped by Mr Platts that by Ms Williams attending a different hospital, would have an advantage as she had experienced previous difficulty with Fordwych Road.
The offer of the place at Felix Brown has been turned down and Ms Williams wishes to continue to campaign for a place at Fordwych House. I have reviewed the detailed letters from yourself to various members of Camden & Islington Mental Health & Social Care Trust expressing your dissatisfaction with the decision. I have also read through the details of the offer made for a place at Felix Brown. I feel that the offer that was made was fair and reasonable. I understand that Ms Williams only wishes to attend “art therapy” at the Fordwych Road Day Hospital, though it is my understanding that the services offered by the Felix Brown Day Hospital are similar to that offered at Fordwych Road. I feel that it is reasonable to offer you a place at different hospital given that Ms Williams has been unhappy with some aspects of the service provided in the past. I have therefore decided to take no further action with regard to this part of your complaint.
I can appreciate that this may be disappointing news for you and Brenda, however I can assure you that I have given careful consideration to all the available evidence before reaching this decision. If you are dissatisfied with this decision you can appeal to the Health Service Ombudsman. For further details about how you can contact the Ombudsman, please find enclosed an information sheet called ‘Useful Contacts’. You may want to contact your local Independent Complaints Advisor Service (ICAS) to assist you. Their details can also be found on the information sheet.
If you are dissatisfied with the way I intend to deal with your complaint, please contact me to discuss this by March 23 2005. If you have any questions about any aspect of this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely Lyndsey Dodd Case Manager
20 March 2005
Dear Ms. Dodd
No letter I have received (and I am 63) so upset me as did yours. I spent Friday afternoon (as you were unavailable) in a state of unbelievable stress and concern at the possible consequences I foresaw. I spoke to and was listened to with great kindness by a number of your colleagues and I was told that your decision is not necessarily final, a sentence at the end of the letter my wife had skipped while reading it to me on the phone. This is my sole crumb of comfort.
Issue 1 I personally over many months fought to have this decision re the Westminster and Camden border reversed via hundreds of hours spent writing hundreds of pages of letters and making innumerable phone calls and sending numberless faxes. It was illegal to impose such a ‘boundary’ due to: 1) Continuity of care issues (7˝ years) 2) Brenda’s previous GP was a Camden GP 3) The Nov. 03 PCT Directive effectively ended the power of trusts to refuse cross-border patients provided they met the criteria, which Brenda’s case did.
David Hobbs did not ‘clarify the position’ to me. I insisted that the case was as I stated and he most reluctantly agreed. Without the help of the wonderful C.E of S.W. London SHA, Julie Dent, my task would have been far harder.
Issue 2 Effectively Dr. Lister and I were proved right.
Issue 3 You have absolutely failed to represent the facts, instead you have presented the views of George Platts and Erville Millar. Your narrative is a travesty of what took place. You omit Brenda’s taking 84 Declefenac when she realized (as I did) that Charles Oseghare’s promise was being reneged on. What has happened to the email dated 7th Jan. banning Brenda for life from Fordwych Road read to me by Caroline Blair, Deputy Director of Commissioning for Camden PCT? Have you not bothered to get a copy as I asked you to?
There is no more objectivity in your letter than in those I have received from CIMHSCT and Camden PCT. The cabal of male managers (Millar, Platts, Lee, Hobbs and Conroy at the highest level) has persuaded you or you have allowed yourself to be manipulated by them or you were impressed by their ‘power.’
This entire problem is about ‘power’ not about the desperate need of one 56 year old sufferer from severe depression to access the care she so desperately needs. Brenda is back on the bench in protest, the only alternative to being her flat and possible suicide. As far as I am aware you neither know nor care as to the possible effects of your listening to only one side of an argument. This is not why the CHAI complaints service was created.
Myself as primary carer, Dr. Lister as GP and Dr. R. as consultant are deeply worried at Brenda’s deteriorating state, trying to do a protest when she is so ill. Are our views irrelevant? Recently the Ombudsman (prior to taking on a complaint of mine as a Formal Investigation) met with us at their London office. Brenda and I feel we should meet with you personally at CHAI’s London office and that a senior CHAI manager (not the one who approved your letter) attends the meeting. I suggest the Deputy Director of Complaints.
Whether you have been misled, misinformed or simply have not dug deep enough only such a meeting can set the record straight. We believe it should be set up a.s.a.p. Once you have met us and heard how we see the case I am confident of a different outcome. Yours sincerely Barry Tebb
18 April 2005
Dear Sir Ian
I am increasingly concerned that Brenda’s case remains unresolved and that she cannot access the desperately needed place at Fordwych Road Day Hospital. Her GP, Dr. Lister, sees her for an hour fortnightly and her consultant, Dr. R. for 1˝ hours fortnightly also.
Doing an outside vigil at the level of depression she suffers is an enormous strain on her. I think it is barbaric that in the 21st century so ill a patient should have been denied the care she needs for such blatantly political reasons.
When Mr. Chacal phoned me this morning to say that his decision was final I asked him if you yourself had agreed it but he declined to answer. I asked Mr Chacal to contact Mark Easter, the recently appointed new CE of London North Central SHA. While his predecessor, Christine Outram, was in that position the SHA was implacably hostile but that may no longer be the case.
Last year I was instructed by the Ministerial Briefing Unit (South) to write to the SHA on various issues, including the arbitrary change of CE’s at Enfield Chase. The then response was that I had no locus standi to ask them questions – in spite of who had briefed me to ask them! It may be that Mr Easter has a different view on Brenda’s case to that if his predecessor and as Mr. Chacal absolutely refused to approach him I am writing to Mr. Easter myself.
With considerable regret I have referred Brenda’s case to the Ombudsman. I feel that if Mr. Chacal’s processing of this case is typical, then the new ‘independent complaints system’ is not one whit better than the appallingly unjust system it was intended to replace. Yours sincerely Barry Tebb
1 MAY 2005
THE CASE HAS BEEN REFERRED TO THE OMBUDSMAN
6 June 2005
Dear Mr Tebb
Thank you for your letter of 31 May 2005 which you faxed to me on that date with a number of different questions.
The review into the care and treatment of Anthony Hardy is being undertaken by an independent panel. The latest estimate which we have is that the panel’s report will be available to the Strategic Health Authority and the London Borough of Camden, who jointly commissioned the report, in late summer/early autumn. As you know from the terms of reference, we are committed to publishing the main findings of the report, so as minimum significantly more than a press handout will be published. A final decision will be taken once the report has been received but the practice in the past has been to publish the full report. The original time set for the report was acknowledged to be a challenging one, but it is more important for the independent panel to satisfy itself that it has carried out a robust review than to keep to an indicative timescale.
In respect of your other queries, I cannot confirm that the man accused of murdering the pensioner in Swiss Cottage recently was a patient of Camden and Islington Mental Health and Social Care Trust. I am unable to tell you the number of suicides and homicides recorded by the Trust in the last year, as that would require the conclusion of an examination by either the coroner or the police. I enclose a copy of the serious untoward incidents notified to the SHA over the period January 2003 until early February 2005 by the Care Trust. Yours sincerely David Hobbs Director of Corporate Development North Central London Strategic Health Authority
POEMS BY BRENDA WILLIAMS
Dismantling Fordwych House
I am forced to begin a long goodbye, There is nowhere to go with my sorrow, The days are just another reason why Everything that is nurturing must go. It has sustained me and been a bulwark Against the world more so a place to be, Somewhere somehow I was able to work Drawing pathways into my poetry, All this will be lost but the fire I drew Never burnt out, a closed unfolded fan, Yet high enough to reach into the blue Sky still whispering of how it began. There is nowhere else to go to from here, There is nothing I can do with my fear.
I shall be abandoned by everyone, And no one will know what is happening, Left to manage reality alone Without anything to keep me going, Most of the time I exist in complete Despair and hardly able to leave my Home, the world lies before me at my feet, The past is an echo answering why. Trapped between these extremes always, I need To draw, the finished picture is no more Than a poultice to draw out pain, to bleed Into colour again from a far core In the monochrome region of the mind, This will cease, it will all be left behind.
And the end is already as a blue Print now unfolding in its paradigm, There is nothing that anyone can do, The dismantling is a matter of time, And everything I have known will be swept Away like a carbon copy of my Life, fugitive in the garden I kept To, it will not remain however I Try to keep it from fading forever In my mind, from the world that was the Art Room, filtering colours tears and laughter And lost as an echo left in my heart, With new lamps for old, I cannot confine Whatever it was I claimed once as mine
A resurfacing of a yob culture I thought to have left forever behind, An assembly line is the new structure Based on a working model of a kind, Allowing respite from extremity For a single hour only, everything Else must wait on hold and preferably With no exception outside the building, Casual barbarity that never Should have been allowed through, yet existing Unopposed without regard for danger, A regime permitting no resisting, Either to obey or to go away, Art therapy will not work in this way.
What is on offer as a replacement Is but a smoking room in a drop-in With a pool table, it was never meant To be anything more than a passing Remedy for people to sit around Somehow trying to console each other, Even they will be sold on and the ground Reaped for profit, and accepted after Without a sound for nothing can be done, We are ill and therefore disenfranchised And with nothing to lose or to be won. Is there anyone to have recognised That this is a proposal that will kill The most meek and the most vulnerable?
More than fifty places will be reduced To only fifteen, a day hospital Razed to the ground, uncertainty unloosed Where once there was hope and a new level Of care yet wholly unacceptable Where the most desperately ill may not Be allowed to get through, suicidal Despair may well be turned away with what Could be termed after as not enough proof. For some of us the refuge of a ward Is not possible, for traumatic truth Experienced there, remains as a sword In the heart, while the mind left to cower Each time, is too afraid to remember.
I came to Fordwych House when my own life Had collapsed, left in utmost jeopardy In the past, I lived each day on the knife- Edge of existence with my family Still around me and gone from me, yet always In disarray. I knew panic and fear Again as I had done in the deep maze
| ||||
