2. Medical Accident – Loss of NHS Patient Records


\\\ NHS

\\\ updated 12 November 2021

\\\ NHS – Post 2 NHS Failings Of Care – Loss Of Patient Records

The Failure Of Satisfactory Healthcare By The NHS

What Happens When You Want To View Your NHS Medical Records?

Post 2

A surgical day care procedure under general anesthesia was carried out at The Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton, East Sussex, UK, called the RSCH, 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 anesthetist and senior house doctor.

The doctor 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 during outpatient visits, prior to surgery.

The procedure did not conform to the General Medical Statutory and ethical guidelines.

The unrushed procedure is suggestive that an accident in the oral cavity took place when the GA track insertion was made being put in the oral cavity for the anesthesia, not an uncommon occurrence.

Within days of this operation, new symptoms started to be experienced, of what is now diagnosed as chronic dental ingestion toxicity speeded up by the process of chronic Oral-Electro galvanism.

An immediate visit to the GP arranged what was to be the start of a number of further unsatisfactory NHS outpatient appointments and A&E visits resulting in severe misdiagnosis and being left undiagnosed, in growing pain, and heavily poisoned with the worst and life-threatening metal toxicity known to man.

  • Secondary care, NHS local health Trusts store medical records of patients visiting their hospitals and clinics.
  • GP practices store medical records of visits made by their patients to their primary care clinics.

GP notes can be accessed now online when one signs up for the online service. However paper notes prior to this newer service may not be scanned on to view, where medical notes can still ‘go missing’. Read more Patients Association.

The RSCH Patient Safety Guidelines

The hospital has failed over 11 years to apologise for their failure of care, and a spectacular second safety incident, which could still happen today to patients in the RSCH care.

Guidelines provided no evidence that the management had in place any safety guidelines for the protection of both clinicians and patients, particularly in both events outlined below.

Patient Safety 1

An unregulated Statutory surgical procedure is clearly a patient safety issue that a failed hospital would rather keep hidden than publish and say ‘sorry’. An accident occurring that causes new symptoms to a patient whilst under the general anesthetic leads to even further failures of patient safety and care.

Patient Safety 2

The failure to let patients see their medical notes is perhaps a less obvious failure of care and safety because it happens so frequently to thousands of patients every day.

The BMJ, 2014, and other medical organizations knew that medical records were a very low priority of clinicians with a high level of patient complaints.

The Health Secretary recognized not just the monetary savings efficiency by allowing patients to access their online GP records but to create a much-needed safety improvement for patients, 2017. This has not rectified the problems of patients having full access to their medical records whilst in NHS secondary care.

Clinician refusals to let patients access their records meant that patients had to go through the long process of acquiring their own records by a Data Protection Request, often after botched care, which could have been avoided had clinicians been honest and open with patients.

The RSCH Brighton failed to provide NHS patients with verbal and written safety guidelines about their employed, third-party, and clinicians working on their own for the RSCH whilst delivering services. This failure of transparency means that many can, and have, recorded incomplete and false information leading to shocking failures of patient abuse, care, and safety.

These failures can mislead other clinicians, as was my case, and cause many years of failed patient care with devastating consequences for the patient, incorrect diagnosis including clinicians prescribing unsafe procedures and drugs.

The NHS too often puts itself on a pedestal above that of patient trust

The Bond Of Trust

After a spectacular failure of care a second time demonstrated by the same hospital, the NHS broke ‘the bond of trust’ they so greatly rely upon.

The NHS likes to work on trust between patient and doctor and this organization just evaporated that trust by lying repeatably to the patient, friends, family, and colleagues. Their behaviour has caused years of untold distress to all.

The Hospital That Won’t Say Sorry

No apology has ever been provided by the Royal Sussex County Hospital for its failed and unlawful patient safety and care despite request after request to open talks. They hide behind their brick wall, using the 3-year rule of bringing complaint cases to the notorious Parliamentary Ombudsmen as justification of not apologising to the patient, family, and friends for their failure of patient care.

Clinicians failed to meet with the patient to sort matters out as their regulator’s state should happen where clinicians’ behaviour abuses the patient further and their family.

The Royal Sussex County Hospital, The RSCH, Brighton, UK has never asked the question ‘did you want to take legal action against the Trust and take disciplinary procedures against the clinicians involved?’


Press articles

The Royal Sussex County Hospital, The RSCH, Brighton, UK has a long history of failed patient care and poor leadership, so much so, that it had to be taken over by a neighbouring Trust, 2016, that had a more exemplary record.

Articles would appear periodically questioning their failure in local and national newspapers, with very similar events that occurred to me.

Failed Patient Care, BBC Report Management ‘uncaring and incompetent’, RSCH Brighton failing to meet national standards and cases of botched care.

\\\ NHS Record Keeping

NHS Hospital Record-Keeping 

The Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust clinicians failed 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, the patient being left in pain, and as we now know, heavily poisoned, not even being offered the pain clinic resources.

The Royal Sussex County Hospital Brighton Sussex

part of The Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust

Requesting NHS Patient Medical Files

Requesting patient medical files should be a straightforward process. Due to countless refusals to view medical files, a Statutory Request was made and not handled in a way that provided any comfort to the patient, only arousing further suspicions about the poor and unlawful care received.

  • Secondary care, NHS local health trusts keep medical records of patients visiting their hospitals and clinics.
  • GP practices keep medical records of visits made by their patients to their primary care clinics.

There was hope that the UK electronic medical record-keeping, (EMR), would reduce failings of care, but was plagued with errors and delays since NHS England launched in 2002. The hospital ran paper and electronic systems together, where doctors repeatably failed to access electronic records, still relying on handwritten medical records which could easily be tampered with, as was my case.

RSCH Medical records were obtained by way of The Data Protection Act 1998, now The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) using the form obtained from the RSCH Trust’s website page called ‘The Information we Hold About You’.

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 what EMR files were required, knowing there were more than 200, and that they were not fulfilling the Statutory 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 dangerous, unlawful, and unconsented surgical procedure. In the knowledge that the hospital had failed to keep safe these statutory consent documents, either lost or stolen, where a medical criminal assault had occurred, the ICO asked the Trust to work with the patient and the Data Protection department then provided the patient electronic files. 

Documents showed severe evidence of NHS staff tampering, questioning the authenticity of the documents produced, and those not produced, now lost or stolen. The name of the doctor was acquired as to whom was in control of these documents, who had last access, for more than a week, to make changes before being sent to the patient.

Clinicians had always known that the patient had a suggestive medical condition, by way of NHS patient scan imagery, but clinicians had repeatedly over the years ignored this, failed to disclose this information, leaving the patient with another life-threatening disease, and other, new, worsening symptoms with growing pain.

Both the CEO of The Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Matthew Kershaw, and the consultant, Mr. K Altman 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 NHS Trust, and seek an improvement in health.

Mr. Kershaw, the CEO thought that it was better to file letters than to meet with a patient and improve patient safety, patient experiences, and satisfaction levels at his hospital.

“The Trust and doctor ignored offers 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 NHS 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 diagnosed one of the conditions, and again, remained silent not disclosing this to the patient, failing to take medical corrective action.

The GP realised that the patient could investigate, take action and possibly seek legal address against a number of NHS colleagues, both in primary and secondary care, had he exposed the diagnosis, and unbelievably remained silent letting the patient suffer severe toxicity, this could have been prevented from worsening, had this GP taken action.

This GP joined the long list of 14 clinicians that simply covered up the facts rather than disclose them to the patient.

The Brighton and Sussex University Trust Hospitals demonstrated delay tactics similar to the case, that former PM David Cameron vocally raised, the “delay, deny and defend” culture when commenting about the NHS, in 2011. The Trust delayed matters, they have been unable to ‘deny’ and of course, ‘defend’ it’s criminal actions.


Medical records showed substantial evidence of –

  • Incomplete patient history record taking.
  • Recording false patient symptoms.
  • Tampering by clinicians of patient statements provided.
  • Tampering and removal of electronic and paper patient statements.
  • Inventing and falsely documenting a physical patient examination that never took place, in an attempt to cover up, by the consultant, who failed to make a patient relationship before surgery.
  • Sending mis-leading letters to colleagues
  • Failings to take routine blood and urine tests, and retests, leaving the patient vulnerable to cancer, HIV, leukaemia and thyroid disease over a five year period.
  • No accurate and timely diagnosis.
  • Failure to provide or refer specialist consultations.
  • No proper care / treatment plans offered.
  • 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.

The list of complaints is endless.

The patient was rebuked numerous times for asking to see appropriate senior consultants, verbally threatened to remain silent and not complain.

This hospital’s failures allowed the patient to suffer symptoms longer than necessary, endangering the patient’s health and long-term wellbeing.

Once the extent of the cover-ups in the scant medical records became clear, and that it was evident for several years, that the patient was suffering from more than one disease, appointments were sought from private medical practices.

At no time have the CEO of the hospital Trust and doctor been threatened, or any other clinician, with legal action, yet they have all 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.

Dental Medical Records

Dental works carried out for some considerable years before diagnosis were private, non-NHS. The procedure to obtain records is very similar to that of medical records.

When specialist dental blood tests were to be requested, a Data Protection request was made to obtain the appliance detail which was suspected of aiding oral cavity toxicity that had been inserted during the 1990s.

The dentist duly obliged, and details were received promptly. A very different experience than that of The RSCH hospital, Brighton.

You may like to read the next post, in numbered order for completeness, Post 3 ‘About The Symptoms’ provides a general overview of 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.


© 2019-2021 Toxic Health Design Horizon All rights reserved.

Published by Toxic Health co.uk

Finding the toxicity symptoms after 9 years of life-threatening declining poor health.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: