Tuesday, 12 July 2011

Liverpool Care Pathway - A One-Way Street Of No Return

Cases abound where the potential candidate for consignment along the Pathway presents with all the appropriate signs, ticks all the right boxes, and yet rallies and improves and survives. A report which appeared in The Telegraph is a case in question:
"I have often seen this happen; patients you are convinced will follow a clear, definable illness-trajectory prove you wrong. It's this unpredictability that makes medicine so fascinating; the fact that the body has a remarkable capacity to confound expectations. Even for those with a terminal illness, there can be no certainties. It's for this reason that I despair of the Government's new treatment pattern for palliative care."
 The Liverpool Care Pathway was designed as a hospice-based care protocol for the terminally-diagnosed cancer patient; it is increasingly being used for patients who are deemed to be in the last days of life irrespective of diagnosis. Its spread is becoming global.

The LCP is ‘evidence-based’. Recognising that a patient is dying is not at all a straightforward, clear-cut matter by any means. Even so, in practice, the clinical team simply have to ‘agree’ that the patient is dying.

Two of the following ‘signs’ are looked for -
- The patient is bed bound
- The patient is semi-comatose
- The patient is only able to take sips of fluid
- The patient is no longer able to take tablets

Once enacted, the LCP replaces all other forms of documentation. This must be an inherent flaw and yet it is dismissed from consideration as such.

Once the patient has been diagnosed as ‘dying’, the LCP-trained nurses feel it makes documentation more accurate and less time consuming; in fact, it excludes all other possibilities but that of the predicted scenario.

The LCP is a legal document that every member of the LCP team works with. It has three main sections:
1. Initial assessment
2. Ongoing assessment
3. Following death.

With implementation of LCP, practice for the prescribing of ‘as required medication’ (PRN) for patients deemed ‘dying’ of non-malignant disease has changed dramatically. The LCP actually prompts the prescription of PRN medication. Prior to implementation, patients with non-malignant disease rarely had PRN medication prescribed for pain, nausea and vomiting, agitation or respiratory tract secretions (RTS). Post-implementation of the LCP, patients with non-malignant disease had PRN medication prescribed routinely!

Sadly, this prescription and administration of PRN medication for patients with non-malignant disease is perceived by clinical staff as being one of the major achievements of LCP.

Thus, these potential candidates, these intended victims - by commission of treatment started and by omission of treatment withdrawn – are set adrift across The Styx and the LCP replaces Charon to ferry them on their journey, whilst the opiates of forgetfulness and oblivion replace the waters of Lethe and they depart finally this, their earthly existence.

Dedicated nurse professionals, keen to advance their careers and add LCP to their portfolio of skills, become blinkered by the tunnel-vision concept of LCP. LCP is a bandwagon and industry which is swamping rational thinking to the contrary with the charge of denial of the basic human right of high-quality death. These dedicated nurse professionals stand in awe of its self-admiring plaudits and its blinkered logic.

From the day of conception, from the day of birth, every day is a bonus, for every day is a day along the pathway of life that brings us one day closer to our eventual, inevitable demise. It is, or should be, the task of Healthcare to provide assistance along that pathway, to provide one more day and to protect and to provide assistance and guidance to avoid the obstacles and the impediments along the way.

The LCP actually removes the individual responsibility for care. It is a pathway of death. Adherence to a LCP flowchart eliminates that accountability demanded by personal clinical decision-making. Shirking personal accountability in favour of the team approach to diagnosis that LCP provides denies the patient the option of an alternative to its predictive, ‘measurable’ outcomes.

The LCP can be discontinued it is claimed, for example if a dying patient improves, but as is shown elsewhere - see Liverpool Care Pathway - A Deterministic Pathway - the pathway is a one-way street of no return.


Sunday, 10 July 2011

Liverpool Care Pathway - And Other Misdeamenors

Mobile Phones

It is common place to be met with the requirment to switch off mobile phones as these may interfere with electronic equipment. Most commonly, the requirment is met with in medical facilities, such as Atkinson Morley, St. Georges Hospital, London, for instance. Atkinson Morley is the neurological wing of St. George's. The St. George's policy statement is shown here -











The mobile phone manufacturer, Nokia, also supplies the following advice in the notes and warnings section accompanying one of their mobile phones:

“SWITCH OFF IN HOSPITALS. Follow any regulations or rules. Switch the phone off near medical equipment.”



In Atkinson Morley Wing, however, the requirement does not apply to clinicians, who are not subject to the same rules which must apply to we ordinary mortals! The following is an extract from a letter explaining this -


Incredibly, the incident described in the letter occurred in the ITU at Atkinson Morley. Furthermore, the call was not from a fellow member of the medical staff, but of a personal nature.


Rights of Next of Kin 

Next of kin do have rights in influencing the direction of treatment, don't they?

According to clinicians at Atkinson Morley Wing, given the mental incapacity of the patient, they retain full and total control of this and are under no compulsion whatsoever to accept input from family members.


Dr. gggg  confirmed that, from a legal point of view, only the patient can give or withhold consent.


Dr gg expressed the view that, with or without our permission, a procedure would go ahead. It was preferred that relatives should be informed and cooperate with decisions previously discussed and reached by the medical team but, if such agreement were not possible, these decisions would proceed and be enacted in any case.

Thursday, 7 July 2011

Liverpool Care Pathway - Not A Pathway, But A Conveyor Belt To Death

Once that chorum of opinion is agreed that death is an innevitable and imminent outcome, that outcome is pursued with an obsession and determination that is frightening to behold. Financial constraints are powering a culture of death that is stalking the corridors of power in the Healthcare industry.

A dark shadow is tramping our hospitals and care homes, eliminating opposition to it with the slur that, to do so, is to disrespect and disregard the patient's best interests. The right to death is becoming paramount over the right to life. The LCP is providing a newfound legitimacy and cover to an unspoken policy that has, actually, been in place for decades.

Anyone who falls into the clutches of the proponents of LCP and ticks all the boxes will be given assisted passage into the next world courtesy of the NHS. This will apply particularly to the elderly who are, in any case, suffering from that most terminal of all conditions - Old-Age! This may apply even contrary to the expressed wishes of patient and family. If you fit the diagnostic category, then so much the worse for you.

Recent years have seen the resurgence of policy that had its roots in the hospitals and the asylums of Hitler's Reich. In 2009, new guidelines on assisted suicide law were published by Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions, to clarify when people were likely to be prosecuted.

TheTelegraph reported on this with the headline: 'Assisted suicide could be excuse to kill burdensome elderly, says police chief.'

TheTelegraph also headlined, 'Are we killing our elderly?'

and reported that:
"Care of Britain’s elderly is under intense scrutiny, with a number of reports in recent days highlighting the risks and suffering of patients at the hands of the NHS or family members. Some experts in care for the terminally ill claim new NHS guidance on the treatment of dying patients means some could be given sedation to help them pass away, masking any improvement in their condition.
Earlier, Britain’s most senior policewoman warned relaxation of assisted suicide laws could be exploited by families to kill burdensome elderly relatives. Barbara Wilding says a growing rift between young and old generations, combined with the pressures of an ageing population, is a significant challenge for police."
Under the headline 'Sentenced to death on the NHSThe Telegraph further reported:
"Patients with terminal illnesses are being made to die prematurely under an NHS scheme to help end their lives, leading doctors have warned."
We left the following comment:
"New laws - New guidelines - These only serve to put more easy power into the hard hands of the unscrupulous, the uncaring and the misguided. There is already a culture of 'letting them go' and an unwritten policy of actually 'helping them on their way' set in place. That is, in anyone's terms, euthanasia!
Lest we forget - The holocaust grew its roots in the hospitals and the asylums of Hitler's Reich. The humane ending of a worthless life had its admirers worldwide in the 30's. Its protagonists hailed these bold new approaches, as now do those of euthanasia today. Extraordinary, but it was out of that darkness of 'mercy killing' grew the death camps. A slippery slope is ever a slippery and dangerous slope to tread."

Tuesday, 5 July 2011

Liverpool Care Pathway - A Cheaper Option Than Continuing Care

The following is a post left on Mail Online -


Those whose experience of LCP persuades them to come to its defence have every right to do so. And those whose experience of LCP persuades them to an opposite view and condemn it as a flawed and dangerous scandal have every right to say so, too.


I am responding to the post made by gg, fundamentally. I am reporting on this family's personal experience. 


The terminally ill should not suffer parting from this world in pain if that is at all avoidable. This was the ethic of the Marie Curie nurses tending to their charges, that this parting should be made as gentle as it may be made. That is laudable enough. Outside of the hospice setting where the Pathway was devised, however, this death pathway has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The treatment provisions under the LCP will quickly manifest the indications of the prognosis made.


Mum was not terminally or seriously ill! Of course, there might be those who take the view that old age itself is, by definition, a terminall illness and that is, perhaps, what influenced the decision that set her on the pathway to her demise.


On the day of my mother’s arrival at Caterham Dene Hospital, I was taken aside and asked, if anything should happen – not that it would! – do I want them to have my mother moved to ESH where there are emergency facilities available? I thought nothing more of that. Yes, of course I did! That went without saying. In the context of what we now know, all that makes sense.


For three years, we repeatedly made the charge that there was/is a policy set in place at Caterham Dene Hospital to make no great effort to intervene to preserve life - by ommission, to ‘let them go’ and, by commission, to ‘help them on their way'.


For three long years, these charges were not responded to. For three long years, it was almost as if we had made no such charge at all.


Wait. Would not such a policy, were such a policy to exist, be euthanasia? And is euthenasia not illegal in this land?


Only through PALS did we eventually learn that there is such a policy in use at Caterham Dene and it is called Liverpool Care Pathway.


If there is nothing to hide, what is there to hide?


My elderly mother went into Caterham Dene ostensibly for two or three weeks respite care, to cheer her up as the visiting nurse put it.


All her medication was withdrawn, without our knowledge; the only medical intervention was via oral morphine, commenced also without our knowledge.


To summarise: We were not aware, had not been informed, that this was a nurse-led hospital and that there was no medical doctor on site at the weekend. My mother had presented cyanosed, been left to deteriorate to a catastrophic life-threatening condition, - and they called Thamesdoc who failed to attend.


My mother perished halfway between Caterham Dene and ESH, paramedics ramming tubes down her throat in frantic, vain attempts to revive her. This was reported to me in A & E in explanation of the very apparent bruising upon her.


Just google a search and it is almost impossible not to find reportage of the downside realities of LCP in practice. See other Mail articles and the Telegraph, Sentenced to death on the NHS, for instance, where this family has also left comment along with many other victims.


There, now, I have made this post without resort to using a single capital letter out of its proper grammatical use - despite the hurt and the anger that this family feels at the Liverpool Death Pathway.

***               ***               ***

NOTE:

The Department of Health committed to investing 286 million pounds over the two years to 2011 to support implementation of this End of Life Care Strategy. That is 286 million pounds spent to assist people on their path to the next world while denying the necessary funding to keep them alive and well in this!

A Daily Mail on-line article outlines how we in the UK have the worst cancer survival rate in the western world. Doctors in our local surgeries, hospitals and health care centres are providing us with treatments based on our illness, our age, our families. The Daily Mail article explains how doctors tend to late-diagnose older patients or provide them with less beneficial treatments. The elderly are routinely denied surgery or drugs.

Under LCP, these are withdrawn altogether, along with the sustaining basics of life!

Liverpool Care Pathway - Better A Life Sentence Than A Death Sentence



Please register your opposition to this madness -

Care2 petitionsite       GoPetition   
    Change.org 





It is hard to comprehend that my mother's life was taken almost four years ago. That is four years of struggle to squeeze out the truth. We did not imagine, could not have imagined, at the outset upon this long and winding pathway that, almost four years later, we would still be fighting to serve justice to my mother's memory.


There have been times when we have almost fallen by the wayside. Yet, we could not fail this lady whose own determination saw her through the trials and terrors of the Blitz and much more besides. So, we picked ourselves up and fought on.


We did not accept fobs and fancies presented to us to side-step and ignore the matters presented for scrutiny and submitted for attention. It has been a bizarre, almost Kafkaesque experience, but it was only through dogged determination that what facts have come out have come out at all.


We are grateful to the Healthcare Commission that these facts were revealed and owned up to in their report. However, to be informed that failings have been acknowledged and that learnings have been taken is insufficient and inadequate and too late. We need to know that those responsible have suffered stern rebuke; that they have offered contrition and remorse for what they did do and regret for what they did not. Only then can come closure and may we walk away from this.


What is very frightening is that these people in what is only, after all, the lower echelons of the NHS in the PCT are, after all, public servants. Do we really expect our servants to lie to us, to conceal the truth? Should we tolerate this?


This is from a letter to the Healthcare Commission sent on 11th March 2009 -
"I also asked you to confirm – or deny – that it is within the remit of the PCT to conceal facts, that is, to lie by omission rather than by commission. I asked that you please respond to this clearly and unequivocally and without benefit of double-talk? I ask you now, once more, is it within the remit of the PCT to conceal facts and to lie? 
I commented in this respect that, everywhere, we encounter deviousness and artifice in our dealings with those to whom we petition in this so-called ‘complaints process’ we must follow to obtain information and resolution to our concerns. We have stated previously that this did not begin as a complaint, but that it has become one. We were well justified in asking: Were Dr Shipman’s misdemeanours also raised and were concerns also dismissed in like frivolous fashion by PCT and Healthcare Commission alike? Our own experience would suggest this to be the case."
There was no answer to this in the letter of response. Public officials, like politicians, are well-skilled in cherry-picking the questions they want to answer!


This family feels it has been run through the mill and practically ground into submission. Is this what this so-called ‘complaints process’ is really all about, that somewhen, somewhere down the line, we will quietly go away? Well, we haven't and we are still here.


This is from a letter to Surrey Primary Care Trust sent on 6th August 2008 -
"So, my mother’s death is just an insignificant detail, then, that has initiated action points to improve your services where you have found shortcomings? How useful for you. You slur my mother’s name and insult her memory!
We have said this before and it bears repeating here: This whole ‘Complaints Process’ is all part of a carefully devised charade to psychologically wear down those who petition you until we quietly go away, mentally and physically exhausted from the effort! And so the Commission present you with an issue which was raised with you but which you conveniently chose to ignore and now you must deal with. Round and round in circles!
No, you are not going to be let off so lightly. This family is still here. We will not disappear so easily. We do not want your insincere apologies. You cannot deny that malpractice has occurred and you do not. Yet, clearly, you attempted to cover this up, declining to report to us the details which have now come to light."
There was no answer to this in the letter of response. Public officials, like politicians, are well-skilled in cherry-picking the questions they want to answer!



Monday, 4 July 2011

Liverpool Care Pathway - An Orwellian Newspeak






Continuation sheets:

Section 2: About the incident


What happened? (Please describe what happened. There may not have been one major incident but, rather, a series of smaller things over time.)

PALS have supplied me with this form to pursue a complaint with the NMC. This concerns treatment my mum, Mrs.g gg, received during her brief stay at Caterham Dene Hospital.

Mum went into Caterham Dene on the basis of core care objectives she herself agreed with nurses upon their visit to her home; it was not to commit a seriously ill patient to hospital care. My mother was not suffering a terminal illness of any sort by any standard except that set by those who actually view old age itself as a terminal illness. Although, at 92 years young, mum fell well within that category.

The steep stairs, noted as such by her GP, Dr gg, had become a hurdle, a barrier, in her daily life, and had confined her to her room for nearly two weeks. This confinement had caused leg weakness and melancholy.

The core care objectives were clear and simple. A brief stay in a small, five-bed ward at Caterham Dene Hospital was recommended which would give her the opportunity to improve her mental outlook and aid her recovery. The nurse said that this wasn’t depression; she was just down in the dumps and needed a fresh outlook.

Whilst at Caterham Dene, they would also look into the persistent back pain her GP had put down to a posture problem, but which a visiting nurse thought might be a hip problem. Dr gg had actually advised upon his visit the day prior to her consignment to Caterham Dene that I assist her in walking about the room to get her posture back into shape.

They would also continue to treat the bullous pemphigoid that had recently afflicted mum following application of a cream prescribed by Dr gg. This was in remission, but still obstinately hanging on, although the Consultant Dermatologist at ESH, was pleased with mum’s progress at a recent appointment in ESH.

Mum had some catarrh and this was presenting green. gg acknowledged this and said they would, no doubt, give her antibiotics on the ward.

It was decided that these would be the treatment goals in Caterham Dene to remedy her situation. On that basis, and that basis alone, mum agreed to go into Caterham Dene. An ambulance was arranged, most promptly, that very afternoon such that we barely had time to pack her things. We were most surprised.

Upon admission, a bed was already arranged and an x-ray revealed that she had actually suffered two crushed discs. Mum was made comfortable in her bed and I left her there with high hopes, looking forward to my visit the following day. When I phoned that evening to ask after her, the nurse said that mum had settled in and had asked after me.

On Thursday, mum was alert and communicative. She was off her food but able to feed herself. By next day, everything had changed disastrously. 

Upon my arrival on Friday, I found them moving mum into a side room. She was, at best, described as confused, but she imparted to me that she didn’t like them in there; those were her last coherent words to me in this life! Mum was in obvious emotional distress at her situation.

The nurse informed me that mum was incontinent with diarrhoea and seemed most upset and flustered by this. This nurse was of stocky build, brusque, and most offhand, as though mum and I were just another inconvenience she could well do without. I am informed that her name was gg, although this is not certain as it is some time ago. I waited outside to permit them to settle mum into her new quarters.

When I returned, gg was still there with a colleague. I noticed mum’s hearing aid was hanging out of her ear and that the tube had been damaged. This would not have been at all helpful in the very necessary communication process to make her wishes clear and understood. I drew the nurses’ attention to this fact. They denied all knowledge of how this damage to her hearing aid might have occurred. gg suggested that it may have occurred in the ambulance transport to the hospital but I had to maintain that the ambulance personnel were both most particular in their care.

Mum had been made comfortable in her bed, but appeared insensible. The nurse was giving mum some medicine. To my consternation, I was informed this was morphine. In my presence, gg asked my mother if she would like some more, offering it almost as if it were a treat. 

Mum was clearly confused, incoherent and in a state of semi-consciousness, just grunting responses which could not in any way be interpreted as consent, seemingly, barely aware of my presence even. When I objected that to proceed would be counter to mum’s wishes because mum had always said she wouldn’t have morphine, gg  became hostile and accused me of attempting to persuade mum, against her wishes, to refuse the morphine!

I was most upset. Mum could no longer consciously acknowledge her wishes and I was made to feel I was not acting in her best interests. I protested that my mother had always insisted she would never have morphine and expressed my concerns that, in an elderly person with a weak heart, the administration of morphine could lead to heart failure. gg just looked askance and calmly said that she had already administered two doses to my mother. I felt isolated. What do you do when a medical person insists that something has to be done? gg became most belligerent and stormed off. I looked across to the door and saw a member of the ancillary staff, a look of apparent shocked admiration on her face.

I was required to leave because they wanted to change the dressings. When I returned they were still there. They appeared surprised at what they obviously viewed as an uninvited intrusion. I was informed that they hadn’t “started yet,” and this must have been two hours or so later. What they had been doing in the intervening time I could not imagine. I was forced to leave mum once again. In the corridor, I was confronted by another member of the ancillary staff, mop in hand. She met my gaze and, unprompted, commented, “They turned you out.” I nodded in response. She replied, “They do that; they don’t let anyone in there with them.”

We later discovered, to our dismay, that mum’s entire ongoing medication had been withdrawn. This was done without our knowledge. We were not even aware that this was a nurse driven hospital and that there was no doctor present at weekends. Mum had been prescribed paracetamol for her back pain. This had been recently stepped up, reluctantly, to solpadol by her GP. We were later informed that “solpadol and morphine act differently, and are effective for different types of pain.” Dr. gggg prescribed the solpadol for mum’s back pain; for what, then, had the morphine been prescribed in Caterham Dene?

By Saturday, mum was completely insensible. I could not believe it. The nurse to whom I spoke on Friday denied any knowledge of the agreed core objectives. My mother was in Caterham Dene, she said, because she could not be cared for at home. The agreed core care objectives were all disregarded and denied. This was more than a betrayal of trust; this was a Breach of Duty to respect the patient’s wishes.

My mother went into Caterham Dene, ostensibly, for two or three weeks respite care; fundamentally, this was to ‘cheer her up’ as gg put it. Her condition, though chronic, was not dire or perilous. Mum had only recently attended an appointment with Dr gg, Consultant Dermatologist at ESH in regard to the skin condition. Dr gg was pleased with my mother’s progress, not considering a further appointment necessary until September 2007. That is all the more reason, then, to wonder at my mother’s sudden decline and demise at Caterham Dene.

Within the space of just two days, she was reduced to a condition of complete, vegetative unresponsiveness; by the Saturday, she could not feed herself and was unable even to lift a beaker of orange juice to her lips. I am not certain that she was even aware of my presence as I spoon-fed her her meal!

Her pain killer, prescribed for the back condition, had been replaced by morphine. Morphine is noted for having such effects as sedation and producing extreme confusion, and particularly so in the elderly. This is from allexperts.com:
“The simple answer is that morphine and other opiates can hasten death in anyone, but particularly children or the elderly.
Opiates are very effective pain killers, but as a consequence can also cause sedation and reduce breathing. This combination can be lead to death, and is particularly important when given to a patient who already has compromised respiration such as through a chest infection.”
Mum was dosed into a condition of utter insensibility. I could not believe it. I actually could not believe the condition they had reduced her to in such a brief space of time, a matter of mere hours! I made persistent calls, in utter desperation, to the District Nurses’ office. I truly believed that they would pick up the calls on the Monday and we could get her out of there. I never believed they could possibly dispose of mum in the space of just one weekend.

Nurses permitted mum’s BP to drop such that she presented cyanosed overnight on the Saturday and did nothing. No antibiotics were prescribed for her chest infection. I received a call early on Sunday morning to say mum was suffering from heart failure and that they were getting the doctor. Still unaware of the reality of the situation, we thought they were actually getting the doctor on the ward. 

An hour later, we received another call. We were informed that Thamesdoc were unavailable to attend and so they were going to summon an ambulance to take mum to ESH.

My mother actually perished halfway between Caterham Dene and ESH, paramedics ramming tubes down her throat in frantic, vain attempts to revive her. This was reported to me in A & E by way of explanation at the very apparent bruising upon her.


***               ***               ***


The Response of the NMC:
"We are not empowered to undertake a general investigation into the performance or conduct of unnamed individuals at a particular institution or organisation where it is said that there have been general failings on the part of that institution or organisation or its staff in general."

Liverpool Care Pathway - If There Is Nothing To Hide, What Is There To hide?

On the day of my mother’s arrival at Caterham Dene Hospital, the nursing sister - I make the assumption that this was her job title; she wore a dark blue uniform in contrast to that of the other nurses - took me aside and spoke to me in her office. She asked me, if anything should happen – not that it would! – do I want them to have my mother moved to ESH where there are emergency facilities. I thought nothing more of that. Yes, of course I do! That went without saying. In the context of what we now know, all that makes sense.

For three years, we repeatedly made the charge that there was/is a policy set in place at Caterham Dene Hospital to make no great effort to intervene to preserve life - by ommission, to ‘let them go’ and, by commission, to ‘help them on their way'.

For three long years, these charges were not responded to. For three long years, it was almost as if we had made no such charge at all.

Wait. Would not such a policy, were such a policy to exist, be euthanasia? And is euthenasia not illegal in this land?

We went further:
"It was the nurses at Caterham Dene whose actions and inactions, by incompetence or by design, connived to cause the death of my mother. Some might say that it was these nurses who murdered my mother; some might say that they were executing a policy of ‘letting them go’ and actually ‘helping them on their way’ as was expounded to me by that person I took to be a nursing sister who took me aside into her office!"
This charge, by implication, of murder went unremarked upon, also.

Only through PALS did we eventually learn that there is such a policy in use at Caterham Dene and it is called Liverpool Care Pathway.

If there is nothing to hide, what is there to hide?


The names of the nurses involved in the 'care' of my mother at Caterham Dene were, and continue to be, withheld from us.

In Legal and Ethical Issues for Health Professionals, George D. Pozgar states:
"Patients have a right to be informed of the names, qualifications, and positions of the caregivers who will be in charge of their care in the hospital. Patients have a right to know the functions of any hospital staff involved in their care and to refuse treatment, examination, or observation by any of them. These rights include:
1. Patients should know who is treating them by name, discipline, and role and responsibility in their care plan.
2. Patients should know the names of all consulting physicians and hospital designated care givers
3. Caregivers should identify themselves to patients by name, discipline, speciality, and identification badge of the treatment team."
According to Kaplan & Sadock:
"Patients have a right to know the position and professional status of persons involved in their care."
In Practice  and Patient's Charters throughout the UK, amongst the numerous rights listed, is 'a right to know the names of the doctors and other professional staff involved in your care.'

According to nhs24.com,
 'You will be told the names of the staff responsible for your care and how to contact them.'
We have been kept in the dark as to the names of the people responsible for my mother's care at Caterham Dene for three and a half years. This cannot be right.

What is there possibly to hide? They were just doing their jobs, following procedure under the Liverpool Care Pathway.

They have connived to use the Data protection Act to deny us the names of these people. George D. Pozgar, Kaplan & Sadock, nhs24.com, please take note!

If there is nothing to hide, what is there to hide?


It was Ms. Anna Walker, Chief Executive of the Healthcare Commission, who first set us on the pathway of applying to the NMC to seek reprimand for those responsible and justice for my mother.

We learned that the NMC is unable to achieve disciplinary action against individual members of staff and may seek only apology and explanation and recommend changes and learnings in acknowledgement of failings. In Ms. Anna Walker's words:

“…the Healthcare Commission has no authority to take disciplinary action against individual members of staff or clinicians. The powers conferred upon the Healthcare Commission in respect of complaints do not allow us to take or recommend such action. Accordingly, any concerns you may have regarding the doctors or nurses fitness to practice should be addressed to the General medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council respectively.”

Thus did we pursue the case with the NMC.

Mr. B....... at the NMC required documents and information of NHS Surrey, imposing time limits and deadlines upon them in which to respond. Several extensions were requested and granted, through February, March and into April of of 2010. Finally, on Thursday the 15th April 2010, he again chased them up, this time leaving a message, with a view to contacting the legal team unless information requested was not sent through by the following Monday. A “bundle of papers” was delivered to NMC offices later that same day, in response!

Why did the Trust require extension after extension of deadlines to provide the documents required of them by the NMC? Why was that necessary? The complaint case was finalised, done; it would only be a simple matter to provide Mr. B....... with copies of reports, documents and correspondence already contained in the complaint file. Was the folder being ‘doctored’ and ‘sanitised’ during this time so that the identities of miscreants would remain concealed?

If there is nothing to hide, what is there to hide?


The terminally ill should not suffer parting from this world in pain if that is at all avoidable.


This was the ethic of the Marie Curie nurses tending to their charges that this parting should be made as gentle as it may be made. That is laudable enough. Outside of the hospice setting where the Pathway was devised, however, this death pathway has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The treatment provisions under the LCP will quickly manifest the indications of the prognosis made.

We charged that nurses responsible for my mother’s care at Caterham Dene, by omission through neglect, and by commission, through over-zealous administration of morphine, did cause and bring about her demise. We charged that the Sister (I assume that to be her title) was actually stating a policy set in place of ‘letting them go’ and even ‘helping them on their way’ in taking me aside, inviting me into her office and saying what she said to me upon arrival at Caterham Dene.

Given certain outcomes, even the most innocent and innocuous of remarks may take on a sinister aspect. The remark of the person I took to be a Sister, who took me aside in her office at Caterham Dene, I have previously mentioned. The remark that one of the ancillary staff made I repeat here:

When I was turned away from the room my mother had been consigned to, this member of staff, mop in hand, commented without any prompt, “They turned you out.” I nodded in response. She replied, “They do that; they don’t let anyone in there with them.”


If there is nothing to hide, what is there to hide?