Ask Atos Healthcare disability assessment questions

beanielou

halight wrote: »

Ok thanks I will remember that.

Will they give you there GMC number as well ? or is that too much to ask for ?

You can look it up i believe on the GMC website.

halight

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

They no longer do - this from an ATOS related post on these boards over a year ago : -

What about the nice doctors and nurses who although they no longer swear the Hippocratic Oath, but do agree to abide by the GMC's 'Duties of a doctor' when practicing in this country. [ seven of the doctors have been under investigation for more than seven months / another five were placed under investigation this year following complaints about their conduct, mostly relating to allegations /concern about the treatment of vulnerable people ].

Do we know the out come of these investigations ?

Or an up-to date number of HCP's that are under investigation at the moment ?

halight

beanielou wrote: »

You can look it up i believe on the GMC website.

Thanks,
Something else Iv learnt :T:T

nogginthenog

halight wrote: »

Ok thanks I will remember that.

Will they give you there GMC number as well ? or is that too much to ask for ?

The GMC should be able to find the right person for you with just the name of the person and that they work for ATOS at a certain branch

The nurses eqivalent did that for my wife. they also told us how many complaints to ATOS had been made against the nurse in question.

I did not complain to ATOS on princible as they are a IT company and the complaint was about a nuring issue.

halight

nogginthenog wrote: »

The GMC should be able to find the right person for you with just the name of the person and that they work for ATOS at a certain branch

The nurses eqivalent did that for my wife. they also told us how many complaints to ATOS had been made against the nurse in question.

I did not complain to ATOS on princible as they are a IT company and the complaint was about a nuring issue.

You do bring a good point up at the end of you post.

I did not complain to ATOS on princible as they are a IT company and the complaint was about a nuring issue.

Atos are at heart an IT and data company.

Many of the complaints about atos are in fact about the doctors and nurses that work for them,

I do think we should bear that in mind,
Maybe it would be better if people who had a complete. Made it to the GMC and not to atos or the DWP.


Might be something that would be of help to others,

nogginthenog

halight wrote: »

You do bring a good point up at the end of you post.



Atos are at heart an IT and data company.

Many of the complaints about atos are in fact about the doctors and nurses that work for them,

I do think we should bear that in mind,
Maybe it would be better if people who had a complete. Made it to the GMC and not to atos or the DWP.


Might be something that would be of help to others,

Please be minded people have to back a complaint by by proof otherwise it will be seen as gratuitous.

halight

nogginthenog wrote: »

Please be minded people have to back a complaint by by proof otherwise it will be seen as gratuitous.

Yes that's very true.

If anyone make a complaint make sure you have some sort of proof to back your complaint up.

I would also warn people not to make a compliant up just because you don't like an out come.

isolation

halight wrote: »

Yes that's very true.

If anyone make a complaint make sure you have some sort of proof to back your complaint up.

I would also warn people not to make a compliant up just because you don't like an out come.

This is a very good point.

(However is people feel they have a genuine grievance, I would report it anyway and let the GMC decide if it is spurious).

I also agree with the previous point in not complaining to ATOS. I didn't want to either. However if I had not, I would not have had proof (both by complaint and by an SAR to the DWP).

This is the reason I am also waiting to after the tribunal. So there is less chance of it being seen as a malicious complaint.

Atos_Healthcare_representative

Muttleythefrog, firstly, apologies for the delay in answering your questions.

Muttleythefrog wrote: »

What should a claimant do if at medical assessment the HCP reveals (or it becomes clear) they have not read in advance the evidence they have been supplied such as completed ESA50. This is reported by many people and I have covert recording of the HCP at my medical telling me so.

If there is a questionnaire the health care professional should read it as part of the assessment. It is always possible that the same questions might need to be asked, to investigate further or check that the information is up-to-date, and so it might not always appear like they have read it, but this is obviously not the case for your assessment. If you don’t think that information from the questionnaire has been considered as it should have been please contact us to discuss further.

2nd question. How does one go about finding out who the HCP will be who carries out their medical. I made a FOI request in advance of my medical but the person who actually carried it out was not the person named in the FOI reply. How are HCPs allocated to assessment - is it done on ad-hoc or 'conveyor belt' basis? And if of a system such as this does this explain why some claimants are actually turned down for medical by the HCP when they arrive in the actual assessment room and their medical problems in basic terms become evident?

For Work Capability Assessments conducted in assessment centres HCPs are not generally allocated to specific cases. Assessments take different lengths of time, so it isn’t known exactly when each HCP would be available for another case. When a HCP has finished writing a report they take the next case that is due to be seen. However, if you can contact us we can discuss your circumstances. I’m afraid I’m not sure what situations you are referring to when you say ‘turned down for medical by the HCP’, but if you could clarify I’ll try to address that part of your query as well.

Atos_Healthcare_representative

staz wrote: »

In terms of an aid or appliance for mobilising, what is considered to be the definition of medically reasonable. For example a consultant prescribed said person a wheelchair for long distances, from assessment was deemed that wheelchair can be used to mobilise short distances through working day. This will compromise said persons condition making them unable to carry out tasks that they can currently do down the line due to the effect it will have on their leg strength. Is this medically reasonable?

Also if deemed to use a chair to mobilise around a work environment why does the ability to get up or down 2 steps go back to them using crutches or other aid? Surely the same aid should be considered as a wheelchair user can not get up 2 steps and even if they can walking they need to be able to get the chair up the steps as well.

staz,

apologies for the delay coming back to you on this. I’m afraid that as this is a question about government policy it’s not one that I can answer on here, but one that you would need to ask the DWP.