I am sharing this with everyone here so they can become aware(if they aren’t already) of just how the various services join ranks and work a Carry On Method within the files of people who are disabled.
This is about my own situation with my son, but I’m sure some people here can relate to it in other situations they are facing or already have faced.
Here goes…
I’m dealing with an awful amount of discrimination and disregard that has been shown towards my son over a long period of time by the services who not only forcibly involved themselves in my son’s care when it suits them but also expect a continued deliverance of information from me. At the same time, they wish to disregard what I tell them in order to cause difficulties in assisting my son with his care and health care needs, especially clinically.
When I mention the disregard I am talking about the non-stop ignoring, misquoting, and downright non-acknowledgment of what I have to say about anything detrimental to achieving proper health care from his learning disability team. They are adamant they are going to fit any pieces into shapes that suit the services means only, and that isn’t going to assist with his care.
They haven’t just got it a little wrong, it’s completely wrong unless it’s a simple task. It can only be continuously like this due to incorrect writings being added to my son’s file. He’s a victim of this doing and so am I.
I realised long ago someone if not a number of health and social care file writers have somehow blacklisted my son for proper support. I also know the whole situation has arisen probably from those involved from the beginning and there’s no theory about it. Health and social care staff are pretty much known to follow whatever the last person wrote down in my son’s files.
Health and social care staff are also avid colleagues who will agree with anyone in the service and that is whether they know it to be right or wrong. There is an unspoken code of practice and they all follow suit in keeping with any information regardless of it being factual. They might add to it or even, as is most likely to be the case ‘back-up’ whatever the last person stated.
Then there are those who nosedive into files and randomly drag up what some bottom feeder wrote decades ago just so they don’t have to use any senses of their own. Or just because for unknown reasons they think it’s appropriate to do so. Normally that would be so they appear knowledgeable in situations they have no knowledge about. Before you know it, they have already done it or as it happens, they are told to do it, in some instances.
Instead of getting to know a client with learning disabilities, it’s far easier to dredge the bottom of the files, add a bit of the middle sections intermix them and form an irrelevant, and often disastrous opinion to place at the top ready for the next in line to follow suit.
I have seen this in action and it is a source of distress when it leads to total malfunction of all services who could have instead prevented such trauma to my son. They all know what they are doing to avoid treading on colleagues’ toes and some are just purely overrun by their work commitments so rely on the past few who write so they can just get theirs written up by ‘the carry on method’. A method that causes more damage and an even less real understanding of the person who is just a client of the services relying on them as professional’s to make the right decisions.
It’s an unfeeling method of not caring less what happens to the person which also seems to include any danger. They simply don’t give a hoot.
Here is an example of professional’s filing in carry on method mode.
DR.1. Mentions hyper connectic conduct disorder (known as a new term ADHD) that he dug up from the files 30 years ago and he mentions this 11 months before by adding it to the top of my son’s files. DR.2 deals with the client’s case 11 months later, picks up the files, then writes and states the active problem in the consultation involved ADHD symptoms, which is why that diagnosis was mentioned.
How did they come to these conclusions? DR’s 1 and 2 have never ever met my son at all.
Of course, I didn’t just stand this situation in the first instance. As soon as I was aware of how DR.1 had acted I asked him to correct his file write-up. It wasn’t just any old write-up either as this was also a clinic letter come minutes to a 117 review meeting. So it was important it was corrected quickly and before it was circulated.
However, DR.1. ignored so the matter had to go to the complaints service who have held it ever since. While they have left the situation unanswered the file writings/clinic letter have been circulated as 117 annual review minutes to those who attended.
Recently I was told, that the Chief of Nursing and Therapies for the Trust is holding up a decision regarding this. Taking her time to forward the outcome to the Chief Executive.
Due to this delay, the damage has already taken place courtesy of an extremely arrogant consultant who doesn’t even to this day know his client who’s my son and that is over 12-months later. He created the damage to my son by a further different consultant(Neurologist) following his lead and making a wrong continuation of it in my son’s health file.
It hasn’t helped that the complaint’s manager is assisting with delay in allowing the Chief of Nursing and Therapies to also delay moving the complaint forward to resolve the complaint that has been with the Heath trust complaint’s service for some considerable time.
These are the sort of thing I am having to deal with and as it happens and I’m dealing with it alone as the advocate has let me down without so much acting in the matter, in the first place.
In many ways, I am the best person who can put my son’s case forward, it’s only the ignoring services who are blocking the way forward. Even so, I still plod on logging what’s happening and responding to the rare incomplete responses they are giving out time-wasting and delaying resolving matters in my son’s interests.
I have written back to P.A.L.S. regarding the Neurologist and her response.
This is my response.
Hello, There is a huge problem here my son wasn’t in the consultation for A.D.H.D. symptoms to be active
as you suggest. On top of this, is it even possible for a 35-year-old to have moderate/severe end of
learning disabilities, autism on the lowest end, AND also have A.D.H.D. ? It’s not even logical additionally
alongside seizures as well. Also, the treatments the Doctor advised all require outpatient appointments my
son can’t cope with at any level at all, and Dr. S. suggests without any foundation, that ‘he’s
reluctant’ to attend when she was clearly alerted my son is actually phobic and has been for a decade. She
can’t just dismiss this and offer him appointments he can’t access and without any support or any
reasonable adjustments offered. This needs looking into again or otherwise, he’s not getting any type of service
from neurology whatsoever.
I wonder how long it will be before I receive a response if any?