I do apologise in advance, this post isn’t the usual happy, cheery, look how positive I am post. These are personal words directed to Hinchingbrooke NHS Trust and their love of the Bolam Defence.
The main players are a Dr Catherine Hubbard and a Dr Zaid Sharif.
In 2011 I suffered a massive pulmonary embolism, since that date I have been trying to find out the truth from the hospital as to why certain guidelines and clinical care procedures weren’t followed. Now I’m not saying that if they were followed things would have ended up differently, but surely it might have given me a fighting chance against the events of the morning of the 12th April 2011.
After a chat yesterday with my therapist (yes, I’m in therapy, get over it..!) it appears I have “a lot of anger” about the events.I have tried to deal with the Trust in a professional, courteous manner, but it appears you can’t. They have a rule in defence called the Bolam Defence, which in short means that if one other doctor agrees with the guilty doctors course of action, then there’s no case to answer. They LOVE the Bolam Defence…!
Here’s some words that need to be aired …..
“The only way to start this email is with “Oh dear…!” As we sit here, contemplating a civilised and polite response to the recent communications from your colleague Dr Catherine Hubbard, I keep going back to the advice given to me by my therapist. Apparently we have anger issues relating to the care that has been received by the Trust, and that these issues should be raised in a manner that gets results.
Dr Catherine Hubbard, where do I begin. Firstly, I shall remove the title of “Dr”, I shall then neutralise the individuals sexual genre, I shall then ascertain the individuals motives and levels of communicative prowess. So we now have a sexualy neutral individual who is the mouthpiece for Hinchingbrooke NHS Trust, it therefore goes that any comments negative or posiaitve (who am I kidding, positive..!! lol) are not directed at an indiviual, but at the system, that this person represents.
Letter dated the 15th August 2014, in response to a letter dated the 30th March 2014. (my that took a long time..!) any comments?
The first 3 paragraphs are a standard, boilerplate, non committal responses and can be covered by the Bolam Defence, I am aware of that, so please thank “Hubbard” for cutting and pasting 3 paragraphs.
Point 1: My condition was not stabilised. How can duty of care not be attributed when I clearly, politely and calmly kept stipulating that the knee and the leg were in excessive pain. The A&E were not even going to xray the knee, we had to request it. The joint could not be moved (even with morphine and nitrous oxide), there is no mention of the excessive swelling. But “Hubbard” does agree that the A&E put my leg in a brace, that is correct, isn’t it?
Point 2: Bolam defence, lucky Zaid Shariff
Point 3: Not exactly true is it? He quoted “an urgent MRI is needed and he would do that today”. In fact, when I phoned the doctors and then the imaging department nearly a week later, they hadn’t received the request. Urgent? My wife then ended up phoning the imaging department, and in tears had to explain that my leg was still locked, I was in immense pain. We dealt with the scan, Zaid Sharrif did not. Is falsifying medical documents an illegal act?
4: Oh dear “Hubbard” and Zaid Sharrif. The problem with saying “Zaid Sharifs notes state” when however, we know for a fact that these “notes” have been falsified. He strapped my leg up, he didn’t give me any information, he knew the severity of the injury, he knew the pain I was in, yet he did nothing. Now, I agree that the NICE guidelines are (at present) in place for “in patients” and I was an “out patient”, but am I wrong in thinking that DVT’s have been seen before by Zaid Sharrif? It’s not like I’m the first person in the history of Hinchingbrooke NHS Trust to ever have an injury so severe that a DVT could really possibly happen, or am I?
As for where the information that Hubbard is so” unsure about where it came from” it came from me, I could look down and see my bloody leg, cased in the brace. I mean, how flaming stupid can you be, you daft fool…?…!! Would you like to see the photos?
A brace on the knee (in the state it was in) whether it was a Peters brace or not, means that the knee is “BRACED” I couldn’t dam well move the flaming knee you daft fool…!!!
Point 5: You are correct on this fact, as an outpatient there are no formal NICE guidelines about anticoagulant as a general rule. Of course for inpatients there is a NICE guideline. That’s OK, I’m pretty sure that the good old Bolam Defence would have protected you. I mean, it’s not like there was a patient there, apparently under the care of the Trust, whose knee and leg were immobilised, in severe pain, unable to move the leg. No of course not, lets check Zaid Sharif’s notes shall we, now that would be funny..!
Hubbard, yes it was “unfortunate” that I went on to die of a massive pulmonary embolism, silly little me..! I don’t give a flying &*%$ for your apology as it means nothing from you, as you are quite simply the most atrocious, corporate obedient, Bolam Defence advocate I could ever have the misfortune of meeting.
I know you won’t apologise, you never do. Quite how you’d cope if the roles had been reversed, what would you have done?
So Zaid Sharif had left the Trust, oh no wait a second on the 3rd September we hear that he’s still there. Wow, it took you over 157 days to get that correct, well done you. 157 days to get something correct that you got wrong.Golly, I don’t know what to say.
You might also like to read the correspondence more closely. You use the term “crassness”, one should never misquote, it’s amazing the trouble it will get you into.
Your investigation was flawed. You have a “Dr” who relies on the Bolam Defence to sort everything out, and her investigation was unprofessional, “crass” (see, now I’m using the word), disrespectful, unprofessional and filled with more holes than the finest piece of Emmental cheese. Your letters make me sick and part of me wants to destroy you, but do you know what. You won’t learn anything, you won’t change, neither will Zaid Sharif. So what’s the point? God forbid a hospital ever treats you so shockingly poorly.
There is still no explanation as to exactly why Zaid Sharif stormed into the CCU, care to explain or isn’t that covered by the Bolam Defence? Oh no wait, he wrote in his “notes” that he visited under the request of Dr Rob Buttery.Oh please…..! Grow a pair Sharif and tell the truth.
OK, that’s my bit done with. It is of course worth noting that the Bolam Defence is being challenged and replaced by NICE
I really hope it means that the likes of Hubbard and Sharif no longer survive because they are protected by an outdated code of silence, they do not deserve to be protected and should be shown as the incompetent individuals they are.