22 Armitage Court, Sunninghill, Ascot, Berks SL5 9TA.
Tel/Fax 01344 620775
Our Ref: NHSOMB2.RTF 28th April 2003
www.NHSCare.info (public information to all)
www.NHSCare.info/EvelynLovelock (now public)
Ann Abraham, The NHS Ombudsman,
11th Floor, Millbank Tower, Millbank, London SW1P 4QP.
Nick Relph, Chief Executive of Thames Valley Strategic Health
Authority, Jubilee House,
5110 John Smith Drive, Oxford Business Park South, Cowley, Oxford OX4 2LH.
John Spargo, Head of Continuing Care, TVSHA (address above).
Teresa Blay, Project Manager, TVSHA (address above).
Alain Wilkes, Care Services Manager, Wokingham Unitary,
Wellington House, Wellington Road, Wokingham, Berks RG40 2QB
Sue Heatherington, Chief Executive, Wokingham PCT,
Wokingham Hospital, 41 Barkham Road, Wokingham, Berks RG41 2RE.
Dr Derek Munday, Clinical Director Wokingham PCT (address above).
Sue Andrews, Complaints Manager, Wokingham PCT (address above).
Debbie Bamford, Executive Director, TVSHA (address above).
Sue Moore, Service Development Manager, Wokingham PCT (address above).
Geoff Chivers, Age Concern, St Andrews House, Wilton Road, Reading, Berks RG30 2SS.
Jeremy Servian, Patient Services Manager, South West Oxfordshire PCT,
Abingdon Community Hospital, Marcham Road, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 1AG.
Dr Van Wyk, c/o Castle Ward, Battle Hospital, Oxford Rd, Reading.
Mark Gritten, Chief Executive
The Royal Berks & Battle Hospital Trust, London Rd, Reading RG1 5AN.
Prof. Ann Sheen, Deputy Chief Executive (above address).
Ms Stefanie Seign, Head of Legal Services and Corporate Risk, Royal Berks Hospital.
Janet Fitzgerald, Chief Executive of Reading PCT, 57-59 Bath Rd, Reading RG30 2BA.
"Eve Lovelock's Care" File, Web sites, Others as required.
Dear Ann Abraham, Nick Relph, Alain Wilkes, Sue Heatherington and those above,
Subject: Care of Mrs Evelyn Lovelock and www.NHSCare.info
Ann Abraham: This letter is my complaint that TVSHA, Wokingham PCT and Wokingham Social Services have conspired to act unlawfully and continue to do so. It relates to 100% NHS funding under Coughlan and I therefore include the relevant forms from your web site. However, my complaint now extends to the hiding, and possibly the falsification of medical records, near to the time of discharge of my mother from Battle Hospital into the BUPA Nursing home. Please forgive this letter also being used to reply to TVSHA and it being public on www.nhscare.info. However, I believe that you will find this useful, since you can conveniently access all such letters relevant to my mother's case.
I have had no satisfactory reply to my letter, NHSC4 12th March 2003, addressed to Nick Relph, Chief Exec of TVSHA, Sue Andrews, Complaints Manager, Wokingham PCT, and others. The recent reply from John Spargo of TVSHA, on behalf of Nick Relph, includes a document entitled "Retrospective Review of Continuing Care" and the following words in bold: "It must be stressed that of the several hundred cases we are looking at to start with, the number likely to be submitted for a revised decision by the Panel will be very small indeed, probably no more than a handful". This gives me little confidence that TVSHA intend to follow the guidance in your recent report, "NHS funding for long term care". I have passed copies of their letter to others, including Derek Cole.
I am grateful for publication of your report and the related exposure within the media of this scandal, perhaps better described as a "£10bn Fraud". As you may know, my mother's case has led me to work with the small group of others, who you probably already know, in using www.nhscare.info to provide detailed and factual information on this subject. I was one of the small group of people who attended the seminar in the Commons on 18th March, hosted by Paul Burstow, MP, and attended by others including Lord Sutherland, Claire Raynor and Nicola Macintosh. If you read the letters, including NHSC4, you will understand that my mother passed away in February but that I am continuing with the complaint since her case is uncovering evidence of use to others.
This evidence already extends to continued unlawful behavior by staff within NHS and Wokingham Social Services up to and including TVSHA. It now includes the hiding and possible falsification of medical records - now public on nhscare.info. I wish the full correspondence between Dr Van Wyk and Social Services to be released so that we may see if it is as we expect. I am concerned that undue pressures may have been put on Dr Van Wyk and other NHS staff, who may only have entered the UK in recent years. I draw your attention to the proposed amnesty for all staff who admit unlawful actions. My wish is for these actions to be admitted and stopped, or at least reduced - not for those, at any management level to be reprimanded or brought before the courts.
My work in speaking with others related to nhscare.info has uncovered evidence of what can only be described as "institutional manslaughter, murder or genocide". Please forgive what may sound extreme language: I will explain. I have informed both local police and New Scotland Yard special crimes unit that information is available on both unlawful activity which may already be categorized as criminal. e.g. major fraud and/or conspiracy. Falsification of medical records obviously can put the patient's health at risk, possibly even their life. However, the manslaughter term above applies to a practice that I understand may have been widespread within NHS hospitals and may even still happen today: the decision, without consultation of the patient or their family, to put up a "Nil by Mouth" sign above their bed, when they have no other source of food or water such as a drip. The result, of course, is that the patient dies within a few days, thus freeing the hospital bed for others. I understand that the Royal College of Nursing arranged that the rules permitting this practice were changed, since it was a source of conflict between junior nurses, responding to a patient's request for water, and the senior staff who had decided to put up the "Nil by Mouth" sign. I understand that this subject is outside your jurisdiction, as is any investigation on conduct of the Department of Health. However, I will be happy to put you in contact with the appropriate individuals if needed. Having put this topic on public record, I do not require you to pursue it: I see it as a "police matter" and will be happy if you confine yourself to the issues within NHSC4.
I still await satisfactory answers to my questions and an independent inquiry into my mothers case, including her eligibility for 100% NHS funding under Coughlan and supply of Dr Van Wyk's correspondence with Wokingham Social Services. These questions from NHSC4, originally asked in NHSC3 on 4th February, are as follows:
1) Why have I not yet received Dr Van Wyk's Report ?
2) Why has Stefanie Seign sent me over 200 pages of records, other than this report ?
3) Why have Wokingham PCT not agreed to 100% funding of my mother's care ?
4) Why are the new (January 2003) Criteria for TVHA "catastrophically unlawful" ?
5) Do you understand that officers who implement these unlawful criteria may be guilty of 'misfeasance in public office' ?
The following paragraphs are for those individuals addressed by NHSC4:
Nick Relph, Chief Exec. of TVSHA: I request a fully independent review of my mother's case. I expect this review to be conducted by individuals who are independent and under a Lay Chair. I request that you grant me this, and provide further information including contact details for this Lay Chair. I will then forward them the required letters. I have not yet received the courtesy of a reply from you. However I assume that you have full knowledge of the letters to you public on www.nhscare.info/EvelynLovelock and that you are directly involved in major decisions related to my complaints and the recent Ombudsman's Report above. I would greatly appreciate a direct reply from yourself.
Teresa Blay and John Spargo of TVSHA: thanks for your offer of a review, and your letters dated 8th April (no ref.) and 16th April (no ref.). Please see my comments above. I understand that both the initial review, and Independent Panel - should I be lucky for my case to be one of the "handful" you describe - would be composed of NHS staff and staff contracted by the NHS. Your claim to the review being "independent" seems to be solely based upon your proposed involvement of Age Concern, the contact person being Geoff Chivers of their Reading office. Please note my letter to Mr Chivers, dated 29th November 2002 ref AGECON1 which you may read from www.nhscare.info/EvelynLovelock. In the letter I asked why Holyport Lodge Nursing Home had been instructed to invoice Age Concern at Reading, rather than Wokingham PCT directly. They were unable to answer my questions but did confirm that Age Concern were being contracted by the NHS - presumably TVSHA. This seems to cast even greater doubt on the "independence" of the reviews you are planning to conduct. Furthermore, it raises serious questions in my mind on the ethics of such use of charity organizations.
Sue Heatherington: I repeat my words from NHS4: I have not had a reply to my question, in my letter ref. SUEH1 dated 6th January, "Please advise me who will be performing the function of Appeals Convener within Wokingham PCT". However, thankyou for your three page letter dated 11th April 2003 (no reference) with attached two page letter from Dr Derek Munday, Clinical Director of Wokingham PCT, to Dr Van Wyk, dated 22 January. I was a little confused by your attempts in both letters to hide Dr Van Wyks identity: as you must know, our dispute is not with Dr Van Wyk (see above), and until now noone has attempted to conceal his name. I will not comment in detail on the contents of your two letters, other than to say that they have been filed as evidence and do not seem to answer my questions or move things forward. You seem to end by asking if I would like an independent review. My answer is obviously "yes": I thought this was already obvious by my earlier letters to TVSHA addressed also to yourself.
I will add the names of Dr Munday, John Spargo and Teresa Blay to the "need to know" list for my mother's case. The information is now public, but the list identifies those who may be defendants or asked to give evidence in any future litigation after the amnesty.
I wait to see if anyone can yet acknowledge that they have been part of unlawful action, and agree in principle that costs incurred so far must now be paid by the NHS. I request that you give these matters your most urgent attention. Nothing in this letter modifies or reduces in any way my claim for 'free continuing care' under the Coughlan Case for my mother.
(son of Evelyn Lovelock and executor of her estate)