Responses to your upheld complaints
In accordance with the recommendations of the Francis Inquiry 2013, the NHS Surrey Heartlands Complaints Team publish anonymised summaries of all upheld complaints investigated by NHS Surrey Heartlands.
If your complaint was responded to by an organisation external to NHS Surrey Heartlands, and was upheld, please visit that organisations website for a summary of your complaint.
You raised concerns regarding the requirement for each patient to be given an accountable named GP and your own GP Practice’s lack of adherence to this.
We met with the GP Practice and worked with them to agree actions and timeframes to ensure that systems are in place to ensure adherence to their contractual requirements.
The practice provided assurance that all patients, both newly and previously registered, will be allocated a named GP within a 4-month period and each patient will be informed of this.
You raised concerns about how your daughter's care package has been handled.
We apologised to the complainant for her experience and invited her to attend a meeting to discuss her concerns and agreed to the increase of her daughter’s care for a 3 month period.
A single point of contact was provided to the complainant for her child’s care moving forward, to ensure ease of access.
You raised concerns that when your sister contacted the Maternity Advice Line on several occasions, she was unable to get through.
We apologised for the inconvenience caused, explaining that staffing shortages meant that sometimes, the line is required to close completely at night time or in extreme circumstances.
When closed, the voice message is changed to provide dial pad options for callers to be directed to their local maternity triage telephone line.
The service has since reviewed it’s workforce requirements, alongside the intended scope of the line to ensure that it supports a safe, high-quality maternity experience for expectant parents and their loved ones.
You wrote to us to appeal the decision of the outcome of an assessment for Children’s and Young Person’s Continuing Care funding.
The appeals process was reviewed to ensure that it aligns with best practice; allowing families to engage with the process and that the most appropriate package of care for can be agreed upon.
We invited the complainant to meet with the Children’s Continuing Care (CCC) Team to discuss his daughter’s care and it was explained that the complaint would be moved from the formal complaints process to the new, CCC appeals process.
You raised concerns regarding the process and forms of communication used by the Referral Support Service (RSS), you were concerned that letters were delayed due to the post
We apologised for the inconvenience caused to you and confirmed that all new and existing members of the RSS Team were reminded of the importance of allowing a 2-week notice period when booking future appointments to prevent this from happening again.
You raised concern regarding the difficulty you had experienced obtaining a new wheelchair seating system for your son from the Surrey Wheelchair Service, provided by Ross Care.
We referred the patient to the Wheelchair Service at Queen Mary’s Hospital, as per the complainant’s request and apologised for their experience.
We provided reassurance that Ross Care would update their website to include a copy of their Complaints Policy, as the complainant had been unable to find this.
You wished to appeal a decision made by the Children’s Continuing Care (CCC) Team as you had been informed that your daughter no longer met the criteria for care funding.
We invited the complainant to meet with the CCC Team to discuss his daughter’s care and it was explained that the complaint would be moved from the formal complaints process to the new, CCC appeals process.
You raised concern regarding the difficulties you had experienced obtaining funding for specialist diabetes equipment for your son.
The complainant was contacted directly by the SEND Clinical Case Manager for Children and Young People and reassured that funding would be upheld for the forthcoming school year.
The contact email address for the staff member assigned to his son’s care was provided in a written response.
You raised concerns regarding your interactions with the Children’s Continuing Care Team and explained that you were not in receipt of meeting minutes that had previously been promised to you.
We provided the meeting minutes, explaining the reason for the delay and apologised for the complainant’s experience.
Reassurance was provided that this had been discussed with the staff member concerned, for reflection and learning.
You raised concern regarding your interactions with the Children’s Continuing Care (CCC) Team, which you felt had been poor and had limited your ability to support your son’s development and care.
We addressed each of the complainant’s points in turn through written response, apologising for their experience and recognising that this was not the standard of service we aim to deliver.
Enclosed with the response was further, helpful information regarding Social Care Referrals and Personal Health Care Budgets.
The CCC Team also contacted the complainant by telephone, to ensure that the patient is receiving the appropriate care.
You raised concerns that your personal data was shared with a third party in error, following your interview at the ICB.
We conducted an internal investigation and the data breach was recorded via our internal incident reporting system, Datix.
Reassurance was provided that the information incorrectly shared with the third party had now been deleted by them and a discussion had been undertaken with the staff member concerned, to encourage reflection and learning.
You raised concerns regarding the closure of an NHS specialist dental clinic in Epsom with concern that many patients with disabilities cannot easily access other services in the area.
We provided two written responses and offered the complainant the opportunity to meet with our Dental Commissioning Management Team.
This offer has been accepted.
I was unable to collect an emergency prescription of Lorazepam, Ecitalopram and Beta Blockers as the Pharmacy I visited did not have stock, due to a supply issue.
We explained that medication shortages are occurring more frequently in the UK and globally and we acknowledged the significant impact that this has on patients, Pharmacies and GP Practices.
We explained that, for any long-term prescription, you should visit your local Pharmacy in the first instance and if your local Pharmacy does not have your medication in-stock, you can obtain your prescription from another Pharmacy.
We explained that unfortunately, there is currently no national system which enables visibility of stock across primary and secondary care however there are a number of local systems in place to support stock availability between Pharmacies and GP Practices.
I've raised concerns via my MP in relation to the length of time my son had spent awaiting assessments for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
We arranged a call between the complainant and our Deputy Director of Mental Health Commissioning.
Alternative providers were discussed and a referral was made to a provider with a much shorter waiting list. We recognised the importance of ensuring that patients and their carers understand their choices in relation to mental health treatment, and we updated our website to reflect this.
There were delays in providing funding for real-time glucose monitoring (rtCGM), contrary to NICE guidance.
We confirmed in our written response that a paper would be going to the Area Prescribing Committee (APC) in April 2023.
Following this, an email update was provided to you explaining that the APC had made a recommendation to fund CGM in line with NICE guidelines for Type 1 diabetes and a final decision has been forwarded on to the Integrated Care System Executive Team to make a decision.