"Keep it short, make it simple, and say nothing" possibly epitomises the thinking of the senior executive members of any Area Health Service or Departmental bureaucrat. However, SSWAHS has learned to refine it to an art form. If it wasn't so serious an issue one might be tempted to stand and applaud the sort of misinformation and disinformation rolled out by the SSWAHS executive.
At any time an Executive which, having learned the hard lessons from Campbelltown Hospital, and seemingly so principled in the application of "clinical governance" would be expected to have transparency and haste to resolve any conflict they might have or generate. Not so with SSWAHS.
One patient from the Highlands who made a serious allegation of professional misconduct of a staff member was eventually contacted by a senior bureaucrat of the SSWAHS mental health service. That is, they tried to phone the patient, maybe once or twice. They then left a letter for the patient to be given it by the staff at the treating unit. The patient was so offended by the patronising approach of this bureaucrat that they failed to respond to the letter. SSWAHS carried out no investigation of the alleged misconduct while that person remained in their employment. When the staff member resigned SSWAHS then sent the patient a letter stating that since the staff member was no longer their employee they could not do anything about investigating the complaint. There was no reference of the complaint by SSWAHS to the registration board or the HCCC for their information or investigation. Some months later an advocate made a formal complaint to the HCCC about the allegation. The matter was sent to SSWAHS for investigation and comment.
The usual practice was for the SSWAHS to be required to respond to the HCCC within 60 days. At the end of the 60 days SSWAHS asked for an extension. At the end of the following 60 days SSWAHS asked for another extension. Within 14 days they were able to inform the HCCC that they could now finalise the complaint investigation.
Why, you might ask, did it take so long for them to investigate something that they had already investigated previously. Well quite simply, that 130 days was just how long it was for the patient, who had made the original complaint and allegation, to die from an inoperable lung cancer. The patient's terminal condition was well known to SSWAHS because they had been providing treatment and palliative care in Bowral Hospital and community nursing services. Unfortunately, HCCC agreed with SSWAHS that it was now too late for the matter to be resolved.
Call me a cynic.... and maybe there's a glass of hemlock waiting for me in some part of SSWAHS, but really.....! Come on SSWAHS, you certainly know a thing or two about transparency, timeliness and clinical governance.
