Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
The publication of the inquiry into surgeons at the Bristol Royal
Infirmary this week will undoubtedly further fuel the rise of complaints
against doctors. The reasons are obvious – the patient when things do not
go smoothly is still not treated as a valued customer but as an annoying
nuisance. I look two ways on this – as a GP and clinical governance lead I
do try very hard to suppress my irritation when yet another seemingly
trivial complaint surfaces in the context of us all working very hard at
serious issues, yet it is my job to put a patients’ perspective into
clinical governance in my LHG so that these complaints are treated with
courtesy and respect.
Yet as a patient my experience is that this is just not happening.
Recently I asked to see my notes under the data act for an episode of care
at a "centre of excellence" 2 years ago. I had been referred to that
hospital as a tertiary referral from my consultant locally, but found that
I was not getting the treatment I needed so I then went privately to a
hospital acknpoowledged to be the best centre in the country.They then
cured the problem for which I had been referred.
Two years on I felt that in the interest of good clinical governance I
would like to get an idea about why things went so wrong, and I asked to
see my notes under the data act, paying the statutory £10 (this was in
itself a very difficult operation compared with getting notes out of a GPs
surgery). I indicated that I was a CG lead for an area whose patients were
regularly referred to this hospital but that I was writing as a patient
with no intention of ever putting a complaint; but that I would like a
clinician to look at the case for interest and to see if there was
anything that would be useful to improve the situation for patients in the
future. I thought that at the very least an organization which purported
to provide a tertiary service to non local patients might be interested in
a case where a patient felt it necessary to leave its service to go to
another, competing one.
I think I expected a short letter from a clinician saying that my letter
would be considered in the context of clinical governance. Expressions of
concern or interest would also have been welcome but I was not expecting
miracles. In fact what I got was a letter from the manager saying that a
consultant had read my letter and it was to be filed in notes. End of
story.
Perhaps I should have put in a complaint after all. It appears that
nothing has been learnt from the events of the last few years.
Competing interests:
No competing interests
22 July 2001
ELizabeth Evans
GP and Clinical Governance Lead for Monmouthshire LHG
Patients' concerns still not being heeded
The publication of the inquiry into surgeons at the Bristol Royal
Infirmary this week will undoubtedly further fuel the rise of complaints
against doctors. The reasons are obvious – the patient when things do not
go smoothly is still not treated as a valued customer but as an annoying
nuisance. I look two ways on this – as a GP and clinical governance lead I
do try very hard to suppress my irritation when yet another seemingly
trivial complaint surfaces in the context of us all working very hard at
serious issues, yet it is my job to put a patients’ perspective into
clinical governance in my LHG so that these complaints are treated with
courtesy and respect.
Yet as a patient my experience is that this is just not happening.
Recently I asked to see my notes under the data act for an episode of care
at a "centre of excellence" 2 years ago. I had been referred to that
hospital as a tertiary referral from my consultant locally, but found that
I was not getting the treatment I needed so I then went privately to a
hospital acknpoowledged to be the best centre in the country.They then
cured the problem for which I had been referred.
Two years on I felt that in the interest of good clinical governance I
would like to get an idea about why things went so wrong, and I asked to
see my notes under the data act, paying the statutory £10 (this was in
itself a very difficult operation compared with getting notes out of a GPs
surgery). I indicated that I was a CG lead for an area whose patients were
regularly referred to this hospital but that I was writing as a patient
with no intention of ever putting a complaint; but that I would like a
clinician to look at the case for interest and to see if there was
anything that would be useful to improve the situation for patients in the
future. I thought that at the very least an organization which purported
to provide a tertiary service to non local patients might be interested in
a case where a patient felt it necessary to leave its service to go to
another, competing one.
I think I expected a short letter from a clinician saying that my letter
would be considered in the context of clinical governance. Expressions of
concern or interest would also have been welcome but I was not expecting
miracles. In fact what I got was a letter from the manager saying that a
consultant had read my letter and it was to be filed in notes. End of
story.
Perhaps I should have put in a complaint after all. It appears that
nothing has been learnt from the events of the last few years.
Competing interests: No competing interests