Joseph Dormer, 11 Fir Tree Crescent, Tadcaster, LS24 9HY
Email: [email protected]
18 April 2016
Your ref: 6818
Mrs Amanda Mullin
Acute and General Medicine
York Hospital
York
YO31 8HE
Dear Mrs Mullin
Please note our change of address (we no longer live in Scarborough). I am sorry that I have not responded to your letter of 21st December before now but the truth is I’ve just not had the heart for it.
Mrs Mullin, you have spent nearly four pages of your four-and-a-half page report explaining to me that my wife’s relapse was not linked to her being taken off oxygen (see first ‘issue’ addressed). It is irrelevant whether there was any such connection. It was not a part of my complaint to suggest that it was. On the contrary, I stated clearly in the first paragraph of my letter of complaint (please re-read) that I had no idea whether it was or it wasn’t. I mentioned it merely by way of preliminary background information. It is arguing to the wrong point.
The question of whether my wife was suffering from a lack of oxygen during the many weeks leading up to her re-admittance to hospital – and whether during all the time Linda Cherry was denying she did – is entirely another matter. Subsequent events and her medical record show that she was: she needed not only oxygen therapy but other treatment as well. Her condition deteriorated even to the point where, through lack of oxygen, she was hallucinating. (She thought that she was watching plays on the ceiling, listening to radio plays even when I showed her the radio was not plugged in, thought one of the plays was about her sister and so on.) That she was in need of oxygen should be evident to you from the fact that she was immediately put on oxygen by the ambulance crew and remained on oxygen for much of the time she was in hospital.
You say that on 4th September (three days before she was admitted on 7th September), my wife’s saturations were 92%. I don’t know where you get this figure from but it is pure fabrication. I’m going to repeat this because I want it understood: this is a made-up figure. Her oximeter readings were way, way down. They were by then in the seventies, dropping into sixties and even fifties on occasions. She was in serious trouble.
You say that while in hospital ‘Mrs Dormer was prescribed a course of steroid and began to improve. Look at her records. You will see she was, as I say, also given oxygen therapy. She was in fact given three fundamental treatments: oxygen therapy, a steroid (prednisolone) and an anti-biotic (acyclovir). The first two were successful, the last had no effect.
You say that “[shortly before being admitted to hospital] you and Mrs Dormer were adamant that you did not want her to be admitted.” This too is irrelevant, since neither Linda Cherry nor anyone at the Kavanagh Clinic could have had foreknown this. Therefore it can have had no bearing on their incompetence and / or neglect. (I will say this, even though it has no bearing on the issue: It is perfectly true that my wife refused to go into hospital at first and if you knew June you would know that trying to persuade her to do something she has make up her mind not to do is entirely the wrong approach (because it has the opposite effect) and it didn’t help to try to get me to say over the phone – the phone was in the bedroom – that I’ll get her into hospital when she slips into a coma. It took me three days to get her to go in since she would promise to go in the next day, then come up with a reason why she should leave it until the following day.)
You state (twice) that Lynn Francis advised my wife to see her GP. Not so. It is true that on one occasion Mrs Francis asked me over the phone if she had seen her GP and I answered no. I expected she might have gone on to recommend that she did see someone – probably not her GP, as he is not a specialist, but certainly somebody, but she did not do so. That Lynn Francis did not advise my wife to see or arrange for her to see someone competent, that each time I contacted her about worsening conditions she merely sent round Linda Cherry who would dismiss these as nothing to worry about (despite it being obvious to any half-trained nurse that she was in a serious condition) is precisely my complaint.
You say [p.5] that Lynn Francis telephoned me to say she was unable to attend. On the contrary Mrs Francis never telephoned to say she was not coming herself, which was why we, on each occasion, expected her and no one else. In any case, it wouldn’t have mattered who came so long as they were competent, which Linda Cherry was not.
You further claim that Lynn Francis explained that ‘the team at Scarborough do not provide an acute service’. She did not, as a matter of fact. If she had, I would have asked her why she was stating the obvious. What she did say is that my wife (or I) should contact her if there were any problems. She was to be our first point of contact. This was what we were instructed to do.
In point 3 you say that “the letter to Mrs Francis [was] opened by the team secretary on the day of receipt, which was 17 September 2015”, this ‘day of receipt’ being three weeks after it was sent on 27th August. You admit that you have been unable to ascertain why my letter was not opened until then [i.e. three weeks later]” and apologise for this. Well, that’s something. (You make no comment on the ‘coincidence’ of the letter remaining unopened for three weeks and then, during a chance encounter with Sue Wilson on 17th September, being told it was found and opened that very morning.)
I had hoped that at least some good would come as a result of my complaint, that some measures would be taken to improve the level of competence and care, however slightly, but this seems to have been a vain hope.
Yours sincerely
Joseph Dormer
Email: [email protected]
18 April 2016
Your ref: 6818
Mrs Amanda Mullin
Acute and General Medicine
York Hospital
York
YO31 8HE
Dear Mrs Mullin
Please note our change of address (we no longer live in Scarborough). I am sorry that I have not responded to your letter of 21st December before now but the truth is I’ve just not had the heart for it.
Mrs Mullin, you have spent nearly four pages of your four-and-a-half page report explaining to me that my wife’s relapse was not linked to her being taken off oxygen (see first ‘issue’ addressed). It is irrelevant whether there was any such connection. It was not a part of my complaint to suggest that it was. On the contrary, I stated clearly in the first paragraph of my letter of complaint (please re-read) that I had no idea whether it was or it wasn’t. I mentioned it merely by way of preliminary background information. It is arguing to the wrong point.
The question of whether my wife was suffering from a lack of oxygen during the many weeks leading up to her re-admittance to hospital – and whether during all the time Linda Cherry was denying she did – is entirely another matter. Subsequent events and her medical record show that she was: she needed not only oxygen therapy but other treatment as well. Her condition deteriorated even to the point where, through lack of oxygen, she was hallucinating. (She thought that she was watching plays on the ceiling, listening to radio plays even when I showed her the radio was not plugged in, thought one of the plays was about her sister and so on.) That she was in need of oxygen should be evident to you from the fact that she was immediately put on oxygen by the ambulance crew and remained on oxygen for much of the time she was in hospital.
You say that on 4th September (three days before she was admitted on 7th September), my wife’s saturations were 92%. I don’t know where you get this figure from but it is pure fabrication. I’m going to repeat this because I want it understood: this is a made-up figure. Her oximeter readings were way, way down. They were by then in the seventies, dropping into sixties and even fifties on occasions. She was in serious trouble.
You say that while in hospital ‘Mrs Dormer was prescribed a course of steroid and began to improve. Look at her records. You will see she was, as I say, also given oxygen therapy. She was in fact given three fundamental treatments: oxygen therapy, a steroid (prednisolone) and an anti-biotic (acyclovir). The first two were successful, the last had no effect.
You say that “[shortly before being admitted to hospital] you and Mrs Dormer were adamant that you did not want her to be admitted.” This too is irrelevant, since neither Linda Cherry nor anyone at the Kavanagh Clinic could have had foreknown this. Therefore it can have had no bearing on their incompetence and / or neglect. (I will say this, even though it has no bearing on the issue: It is perfectly true that my wife refused to go into hospital at first and if you knew June you would know that trying to persuade her to do something she has make up her mind not to do is entirely the wrong approach (because it has the opposite effect) and it didn’t help to try to get me to say over the phone – the phone was in the bedroom – that I’ll get her into hospital when she slips into a coma. It took me three days to get her to go in since she would promise to go in the next day, then come up with a reason why she should leave it until the following day.)
You state (twice) that Lynn Francis advised my wife to see her GP. Not so. It is true that on one occasion Mrs Francis asked me over the phone if she had seen her GP and I answered no. I expected she might have gone on to recommend that she did see someone – probably not her GP, as he is not a specialist, but certainly somebody, but she did not do so. That Lynn Francis did not advise my wife to see or arrange for her to see someone competent, that each time I contacted her about worsening conditions she merely sent round Linda Cherry who would dismiss these as nothing to worry about (despite it being obvious to any half-trained nurse that she was in a serious condition) is precisely my complaint.
You say [p.5] that Lynn Francis telephoned me to say she was unable to attend. On the contrary Mrs Francis never telephoned to say she was not coming herself, which was why we, on each occasion, expected her and no one else. In any case, it wouldn’t have mattered who came so long as they were competent, which Linda Cherry was not.
You further claim that Lynn Francis explained that ‘the team at Scarborough do not provide an acute service’. She did not, as a matter of fact. If she had, I would have asked her why she was stating the obvious. What she did say is that my wife (or I) should contact her if there were any problems. She was to be our first point of contact. This was what we were instructed to do.
In point 3 you say that “the letter to Mrs Francis [was] opened by the team secretary on the day of receipt, which was 17 September 2015”, this ‘day of receipt’ being three weeks after it was sent on 27th August. You admit that you have been unable to ascertain why my letter was not opened until then [i.e. three weeks later]” and apologise for this. Well, that’s something. (You make no comment on the ‘coincidence’ of the letter remaining unopened for three weeks and then, during a chance encounter with Sue Wilson on 17th September, being told it was found and opened that very morning.)
I had hoped that at least some good would come as a result of my complaint, that some measures would be taken to improve the level of competence and care, however slightly, but this seems to have been a vain hope.
Yours sincerely
Joseph Dormer