|
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
|
|
What Lies Beneath? Richard Bruce has struggled to obtain his medical records since 1992. The question we would like to ask is what is the NHS trying to hide? In 1992 after poisoning by an illegal mixture of two organophosphorus pesticides I was referred to several hospitals for tests and diagnosis, including the local hospital, St Mary's Newport, Isle of Wight, Southampton General, Royal South Hants also in Southampton, Southern General Hospital in Glasgow, and Guy's & St Thomas' Hospitals in London. Several trips to Guy's Hospital in 1992 and 1993, included two weeks as an in-patient for extensive tests following preliminary examination to ensure that my case fulfilled the criteria for OP poisoning. In February 1994 I was handed my medical records. The front cover declared that it should not be handed to the patient. My wife and I read the comments about organophosphorus poisoning and saw the explanation marks written by the blood pressure figures. Despite the fact that the appointment that day was to determine if the damage to the visual fields had worsened there were no records available and the staff only had one letter from Dr GlynVolans who was the Head of the Poisons Unit. It seems that Dr Volans arranged for this false test in order to counter the earlier evidence of brain, optic nerve and autonomic nervous system damage, but the Trust refused to clarify the situation. By then, I had contacted a Solicitor and he asked the Hospital for copies of my records. He was sent just 22 pages of letters written by the doctors, most of which were by then outdated by events. He accepted them as the "full records".
The Lawyer never did obtain the full copies, despite requiring them for any accurate assessment of the case. Dr Volans wrote three letters of differing opinion on my case within a week of the Writ being served and the full records were essential but nothing changed. On 2nd December 1994 Dr Volans wrote to my GP withdrawing the diagnosis and claiming that even the initial symptoms were not those of OP poisoning. On the same day he wrote to the DSS confirming that my symptoms were those of chronic OP poisoning and stating that despite all the tests done, which included psychiatric and psychological assessments, they could find no alternative diagnosis to that of poisoning. However, he wrote to the Health & Safety Executive suggesting that their Psychiatrist, who I understand is employed by the chemical company, whose product was involved in my exposure, should have seen me more. HSE had failed to investigate my accident but despite that they claimed that there had been no incident, no exposure and that therefore I could not have been poisoned. I asked the Guy's & St Thomas' Trust for an explanation but they refused to come clean and so I reported them to the Health Service Ombudsman who refused to investigate anything other than the failure to address the complaint. He upheld my complaint and I asked him for copies of my medical records. He suggested that I contacted the Trust to receive forms, which I had to have witnessed. They then claimed to have lost the forms, but I repeated the exercise and on the 23rd January 1997 just 43 pages of medical records arrived in the post accompanied by a note stating as follows:
Obviously untrue. I wrote asking again for full copies of the records. On 6th February 1997 they sent just 9 sheets from St Thomas' Hospital.
Records were still being withheld so I wrote requesting compliance with the Act. A further 243 sheets arrived in the post, but many pages were repeated simply to bulk out the parcel. The letter was pre-dated the 1st April 1997.
I wrote again asking that they provide the full copies of the records as requested. This time they sent just 7 sheets from St Thomas' Hospital, all repeats of sheets already released and the letter proclaimed that I now had the complete records. Wrong again.
More letters followed and after contact with my MP, another parcel arrived dated 22nd January 1998, with some 272 sheets but again mostly repeats of earlier papers and with repeated copies to bulk up the numbers enclosed.
I knew that there were still vital papers missing, not least of which were the results of the very first blood and urine tests which triggered the referral. However, included was a copy of a letter to the defendants in my case who obviously had no problem obtaining my records? A hand written note gave the total number of sheets copied to the defendant's lawyers as 312.
Obligingly the Poisons Unit sent them further sheets on request.
The Trust insisted that I named and identified the missing papers, and even asked for those I had to be returned. They suggested that I should risk my already deteriorating health and travel to London to examine the files, but clearly even if I did so, there was no guarantee that the missing papers would be in the files shown to me. I listed some of the missing files, including the "reference samples" but still they refused to supply full copies. In 1999, still without the full records, I appeared before a DSS Tribunal. The Chairman admitted that in cases of Gulf War Syndrome, vaccine damage and in chemical poisoning it was usual to find that the claimants could not obtain their medical records. In July 2000 I tried the Data Protection Agency but they refused to help unless I gave details of the missing records. I did so but they still refused to help. In October 2000 I wrote to the GMC asking if Doctors can withhold records if by releasing them they could face criminal charges. They promised to clarify the position but then refused to reply to letters. I wrote again to the Trust. 'Dear Mr Matthews, I refer you to the considerable correspondence during 1994, 1995, and in 1996, 1997 and 1998 regarding your claims to have supplied full copies of my medical records. Yesterday an individual who has professional understanding of the ways of the medical profession examined the records available to me and it has been reported to me that it is obvious that vital information has been withheld. You are, I am sure, aware of your legal responsibilities in this matter. I now also have evidence that the defendants in the legal case in which I am involved have been provided access to, and copies of, those records. My own lawyers have claimed to have been unable to obtain copies and in fact have claimed that the Trust would have destroyed any records not already available to me. The legal action has been considerably compromised and delayed by your refusal to release the full copies of those records as requested on numerous occasions. The records are germane to my case both in law and in the ability to obtain rightful benefits. They are also vital in order that the doctors helping me can provide the safest treatments. My health has deteriorated over the years and I have been advised by doctors not to travel. Your staff knew very well that legal cases were underway and that destroying evidence would be an offence and I have therefore questioned the accuracy of the statement made by the lawyers, which I do not believe to be true. However, the Trust has persisted in its claim that copies of the complete set of records has been provided and yet your staff failed even to supply those specifically listed as missing, at the request of your staff, on 17th October 1997. I understand that the Trust Chief Executive is to be made liable for breaches in regulation and I am sure that you are aware that I could issue a writ myself to force disclosure. I have no great desire to embarrass the Trust by taking such action but it is clear that all the OP cases are about to be challenged through lack of medical evidence and the actions of the Trust in hiding that evidence must eventually be explained. I look forward to a prompt response on this occasion and to receiving full copies of the records.' However, the Trust had a new Chief Executive, Dr Jonathan Michael. I wrote to Dr Michael: 'It seems that the only way we can get those records is to force disclosure from the defendant and if the papers do not match with those the Trust sent to me then I would suggest that this would be further evidence that the Trust failed to comply with the obligations imposed by the Act Incidentally I go to Court on Thursday and this may be the last legal opportunity I have to put supporting evidence for my rightful benefit claim appeal. The Court has already been notified of the difficulties I have had in obtaining the full medical records. I did inform you that time was limited. The claims repeatedly made by the Trust that my full records have been supplied to me are clearly false but a letter in the HSE file indicates that the National Poisons Unit is some 4 miles from Guy's Hospital and it may be that your staff removed certain information there in order to prevent my access to them. Perhaps the missing papers are with the Medical Toxicology Unit? I think it is about time that information was released to me and the efforts to hide the truth about this disgraceful affair ended. Thanks again for the belated reply.' There was no response. The Commissioner believed what the Trust said and assumed that there was no supporting evidence. I wrote again to the Trust: 'You claim, once again falsely, that I "have already had several sets of the complete records held by the Trust". When Leigh Day & Co asked for the complete set of records on several occasions in 1994 they were supplied with just 22 pages of letters of opinion and no actual records at all but it was also claimed that they represented the "full records" held by the Trust.………….As any schoolboy could tell you none of those parcels represented the "Full copies" of records and none of them included correspondence with the HSE released to me under the Data Protection Act. Clearly the Trust was more willing to comply with lawyers acting for my employer who had lied about the chemicals involved than they were in protecting their patient from such abuses. The only reason my GP sent me to the Trust was to establish a diagnosis. Many invasive and painful procedures were used in order to obtain the information in those records. In fact it would seem that sometimes incorrect procedures were used which would technically have been assault, as seen with some blood tests and the muscle biopsy (insufficient sample taken). Failing to supply the full copies of the records simply adds weight to that view. If the Trust does not hold the missing papers even though you wrote that you had the complete file then perhaps you could tell me where those vital papers have gone and who authorised the removal?I would remind you that the Trust staff knew that the records were required for evidence. In 2001 Data Protection papers from the Health & Safety Executive show collusion between Dr Volans and HSE. They were offered full copies of the records.
Court papers show that the Defence had records from all the hospitals. I have partial records from the Guy's & St Thomas' Trust and those sent to my GP by St Mary's. I have nothing from the Southampton Hospitals. The Southern General Glasgow denies I ever attended. The Berkshire Police force investigating the OP experiments at Porton Down, linked to Doctors at St Thomas' Hospital, suggested that it was vital to protect my records and samples to avoid destruction after 10 years. I have no idea if this was done but Lawyers, who paid the hospitals for copies of records they did not receive, say the samples have been destroyed. RESOURCES Access to Health Records
|
|
|
|
|
[Home] [NHS Exposed] [Patients] [Health Workers] [NHS in Crisis] [Legal Issues] [Media] [Helpdesk] [Public Views] All copyright remains with original authors unless otherwise stated. |
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
