The NHS Accident – Post 2
A surgical day care procedure under general anaesthesia was carried out at The Royal Sussex County Hospital part of The Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, by an Oral and Maxillofacial Consultant Surgeon, Mr K Altman, who failed to meet the patient prior to surgery, as did the anaesthetist.
The doctors did not explain the options, setting out the potential benefits, risks, burdens, and side effects. No clear accurate information was provided to make informed decisions.
It was evident that this Oral and Maxillofacial department was suffering from a toxic culture, where doctors could be heard arguing over my care when in outpatients prior to surgery.
The procedure did not conform to the General Medical Statutory and ethical guidelines.
The unrushed procedure is suggestive that an unknown accident in the oral cavity took place, by the insertion of the GA track being put in the oral cavity for the anaesthesia.
Within days new symptoms started to be felt, of what is now diagnosed to be dental ingestion toxicity speeded up by the process of Oral-Electro galvanism.
A visit to the GP arranged the start of a number of further NHS outpatient appointments and A&E visits resulting in misdiagnosis and being left undiagnosed, in growing pain, poisoned.
NHS local health trusts keep medical records of patients visiting their hospitals and clinics.
GP practices keep medical records of visits made to their primary care clinics.
The Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust clinicians were unable to diagnose the growing symptoms and were less than forthcoming in providing answers and admitting their mistakes.
Both the Trust officers and clinicians were offered an opportunity to communicate and work with the patient to diagnose the symptoms through beneficial learning. The offer was ignored being left in pain, and not even offered the pain clinic resources.
Numerous requests had been made to view personal patient records, and all were refused. This provoked huge suspicions about the care offered.
There was hope that the UK electronic medical record-keeping, (EMR), would reduce failings of care, but was plagued with errors and delays since launching 2002. The hospital ran paper and electronic systems together.
The hospital failed to complete the Data Protection Statutory Request in full, omitting to provide EMR, the electronic records. Their reason provided that there are more than 200 electronic differing files used in their hospital and that they were not sure which files stored the information requested. They never asked the patient, knowing they were not completing the legal Request.
With the intervention of The Information Commissioners Office, The ICO, The Brighton and Sussex University Hospital NHS Trust Data Controller was made aware that the patient retained statutory copies of the unconsented surgical procedure. In the knowledge that a medical criminal assault had occurred, The ICO asked the Trust to work with the patient and the Data Protection department provided the patient electronic files.
Documents provided severe evidence of tampering, questioning the authenticity of the documents produced, and those not produced, now lost or stolen.
Clinicians had always known about a medical condition, by way of scan imagery, but clinicians had repeatedly over the years, failed to disclose this information, leaving the patient with a life-threatening disease and other worsening symptoms with growing pain.
Both the CEO of The Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, and consultant were offered the opportunity to put matters right, just as the GMC, The General Medical Council, suggests should happen, restore the patient’s confidence in the Trust, and seek an improvement in health.
“The Trust and doctor ignored my offer to meet, unable to offer any evidence that their failures of diagnosis and poor management would not be repeated today.”
The CEO and the doctor have had, and still, today, have no defence to the criminal actions carried out in this Trust hospital.
It was further noted in the patient GP notes, at Charter Medical, Hove, Sussex, obtained through a separate Medical Data Protection Request, that the GP had also diagnosed the condition and again, remained silent not disclosing this to the patient failing to take corrective action.
The GP realised that the patient could investigate, take action and sue a number of colleagues, unbelievably remained silent letting the patient suffer.
The Brighton and Sussex University Trust Hospitals demonstrated delay tactics to the case, the “delay, deny and defend” culture vocally raised by a former Prime Minister, David Cameron, when commenting about the NHS, 2011. The Trust has been unable to ‘deny’ and of course, ‘defend’ it’s criminal actions.
Medical records showed substantial evidence of –
- tampering by clinicians of patient statements provided.
- tampering and removal of electronic and paper patient statements.
- inventing a physical examination that never took place.
- failings to take blood and urine tests, and retests, leaving the patient vulnerable to cancer, HIV, leukaemia and thyroid disease over a five year period.
- diagnosing the patient before a consultation and examination took place.
- poor department transitional medical information whilst in the Trusts’ care.
- distorting and concealing information deliberately.
- failures to comply with legal obligations.
- unnecessary use of drugs and treatments.
- suffered symptoms longer than necessary, endangering the health and long-term wellbeing.
The list of complaints is endless.
Once the extent of the cover-ups in the medicals records became clear, and that it was evident that the patient was suffering from more than one disease, appointments were sought from private practice.
At no time were the CEO of the hospital Trust and doctor threatened with legal action yet refused to meet to discuss the problems and put right their obligations to the patient.
It became clear that this hospital and its clinicians were badly led and in turmoil.
Posts are in numbered order for completeness. You may like to read the next post, post 3, a general overview about the symptoms diagnosed.
Important. Please read our terms and conditions of use of this website.
If you wish to contact us please use the ‘contact page’ on the disclaimer page providing your details or comment about the website on the ‘leave the reply’ section at the foot of the page. Spotted any broken links? Please message us.