"One in three over-65s develop dementia"

Errata

I hope the national newsapers pick up on the letter.

Trebor16

In the wake of the Francis report I will be contacting the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Nursing Officer about the letter and to see how they see it and it's suitability. My solicitor is of the opinion it is illegal but she will be verifying that.

Errata

Dunno about illegal, it's certainly abusive.

Trebor16

Errata wrote: »

Dunno about illegal, it's certainly abusive.

Abusive and very threatening. The icing on the cake was the discharge coordinator who made a hungry Rottweiler look like the friendliest dog in the world. To describe her as overbearing, aggressive and bullying doesn't do her justice!

John_Pierpoint

In my opinion that letter just puts in writing what other hospital authorities are doing behind the curtains anyway.

Old age and infirmity is not an illness, so it your responsibility to get them out of here.

Hence the battles, with brain damaged patients, of arguing about what is medical and what is care in the £1,000 a week package that the hospital discharge department recommends.

[Between you and me hospitals do have a fund for terminal care of patients who are likely to die in the next few months; but there is no point in spending it, if the patient has a lifetime of savings on which to draw.]

anamenottaken

Trebor16 wrote: »

. . .

If you cannot find a suitable placement and refuse temporary placement offered to you we will refer you to our legal team.

I trust this letter makes it very clear to you and your family and friends that you will not be able to stay in hospital whilst waiting for your home of choice to have a vacancy"
. . .

I would laugh at the supposed threat "refer you to our legal team" - but then I'm not feeling vulnerable right now.

The "family and friends" test - on discharge patients are being asked whether they would recommend a hospital to their family and friends. I wonder what satisfaction rates Ipswich Hospital will achieve. (The test is flawed in any case but that's a separate issue.)

pineapple

Seems like that letter was drafted by a bunch of jobsworths who are just covering their backs from the legal (as they see it) side. I am not excusing that letter - in any case the patient has every right (unless sectionned) to choose to live at home -or a cardboard box if they so choose. That said, if the patient refuses care and the hospital knowingly discharges them to an unsafe situation, their neck is on the line. I think that's where this letter is coming from.
I should imagine (well I certainly hope so) that no letter of any description would be given out without there having been a discussion with the patient and/or family. Imo something does need to be put in writing but that letter is just plain wrong on so many fronts.

Prothet_of_Doom

Before "Pathway" there was "NOT FOR 222"

222 being the "crash" team in Birmingham's hospitals.

Trebor16

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

In my opinion that letter just puts in writing what other hospital authorities are doing behind the curtains anyway.

Old age and infirmity is not an illness, so it your responsibility to get them out of here.

How is it my responsibility to get my mother out of hospital? Is there legislation that states that I have that responsibility? And while old age and the ageing process are not an illness the after effects of a stroke (which is a medical and health episode) are not normal parts of the ageing process, especially when they can and do affect people at a much earlier age.

John_Pierpoint wrote:

Hence the battles, with brain damaged patients, of arguing about what is medical and what is care in the £1,000 a week package that the hospital discharge department recommends.

[Between you and me hospitals do have a fund for terminal care of patients who are likely to die in the next few months; but there is no point in spending it, if the patient has a lifetime of savings on which to draw.]

If a person has primary health needs, then the NHS, under current legislation, are obliged to meet the cost of the care needed, regardless of a persons means.

Trebor16

pineapple wrote: »

Seems like that letter was drafted by a bunch of jobsworths who are just covering their backs from the legal (as they see it) side. I am not excusing that letter - in any case the patient has every right (unless sectionned) to choose to live at home -or a cardboard box if they so choose. The hospital can't keep them as inpatients but if the patient refuses care and the hospital knowingly discharges them to an unsafe situation, their neck is on the line. I think that's where this letter is coming from.
I should imagine (well I certainly hope so) that no letter of any description would be given out without there having been a discussion with the patient and/or family. Imo something does need to be put in writing but that letter is just plain wrong on so many fronts.

There was no discussion with my mum or other family members about this letter, it was just left by my mums bed for my sister to collect and it wasn't even dated or addressed to my mum.