27^th April 2013 [blog No. 24 of 24]

Hello again, it’s me, Peggy

Today I am still suffering with excruciating pain in my Right foot from having the inappropriate and negligently administered Guanethidine Pain-Block injection put directly into my Right foot, as opposed to a vein, in November 1993.

I reiterate here that it was done in an inappropriate attempt to kill the pain that I was suffering in my Right knee and that I have since been advised by a consultant at the RDGH (in December 2008 in a sound recorded conversation) who confirmed that he was very experienced in Guanethidine Pain-Block Injections and that the Guanethidine should not have been injected into my Right foot for the pain I was suffering from in my Right knee in any event.

He went on to advise me that if the injection missed the vein (as it did) then I did have a problem. This has resulted in irreversible Osteoporosis in my Right foot.

Dr Renshaw undertook the procedure at the Bassetlaw Hospital in 1993, as opposed to properly advising me that the cause of my knee pain was due to a bony lesion situated on the medial aspects of my Right knee, and were to be seen in Bassetlaw x-rays dated 1991. I allege that he did this to cover the backs of his colleagues.

As I said in my blog last week, Paul Cook did put in his letter to Blundell at the SNGH that I needed treatment for this condition but as you can see from past blogs Blundell refused to treat me. I have not even been prescribed any medication (other than pain killers) for the diagnosed Osteoporosis. Mr Giles (at the RDGH in 2008) did say that if he were to treat my Right foot problem he would want to amputate my foot, from just below the knee. Now what does that tell you!!!

There was another cover-up attempt made in 1998. I was referred to Miss Amanda Rees (Orthopaedic Surgeon at the RDGH) by my then GP and the consultation with Miss Rees took place at the RDGH on 23/12/1998.

At the consultation I provided Miss Rees with copies of Bassetlaw Hospital 19/08/1991 x-rays and July 1996 x-rays of my Right knee, those the Trust agreed existed. I also provided MRI Scan film dated February 1998.

She examined the x-rays and advised me that there were signs of metal fragments to be seen on the medial aspects of my Right knee in those x-rays.

Miss Rees sent me for further x-rays but when I attended the Radiology Department the Radiologist informed me that he couldn’t understand why Ms Rees had instructed him to process the x-rays on an x-ray machine that was obsolete. He said they didn’t use that machine anymore. What does that tell you!!

I discovered later (at an Independent Review meeting) that the machine had damaged Intensifier Screens (whatever they are) and Radiologist could not determine metal fragments in my knee from the amount of artefacts seen on the x-ray film.

When I returned to her consulting room Miss Rees examined the x-rays. But her attitude had changed somewhat, and not for the better. She refused to review the MRI Scans of my Right knee that I had provided by saying she did not understand MRI films.

My husband asked her about the metal fragments that she had at first diagnosed as been on the medial aspects, and she retorted; they’re not there now, the MRI Scanner must have moved them. Her attitude was arrogant. When my husband told her that we were simply seeking a correct diagnosis she arrogantly said, “You’ll have to see your smart solicitor for that”! The remainder of the consultation resulted in a cover-up.

See below a copy of my husband’s fax on 23 December 1998 to Stephen Griffiths (Senior Patients Service Manager.

Stephen Griffiths

(Senior Patients Service Manager)
Rotherham District General Hospital
Moorgate Road
Oakwood

Rotherham S60 2UD

            23 December 1998     (By fax today, 23.12.1998 copy in post)

                AJR5A                                                RDGH

Dear Mr Griffiths

My wife has seen Miss Amanda Rees at the Orthopaedic clinic today.

Miss Rees examined my wife’s Right knee, she was given the history of the knee problem including how Bassetlaw Hospital had refused treating the knee and how Mr Choudhary had told her, he would talk about the ankle all day but he would not discuss the knee. Miss Rees told us that Bassetlaw Hospital was definitely in the wrong by not treating the knee condition.

Miss Rees was handed an x-ray of the Right knee, that had been taken at the Bassetlaw Hospital on 26/7/96. On examination of this x-ray she formed the opinion that the calcified nodule that could be seen in the x-ray, to the Medial Aspect of the Right knee, had a metal content and went on to say that it is normal in surgery as a lot of bits can get left in.

She was told and shown that my wife had an M R I done in February of this year and the process had torn at the inside of her knee causing pain and internal bleeding and that the Radiologist had shown concern by saying, I thought you hadn’t any metal in your knee Mrs Barnes. Miss Rees was surprised that we had been able to obtain an M R I  scan without being referred by a consultant.

My wife was sent for x-rays and was later recalled to see Miss Rees. She came through into the examination room and her attitude had changed somewhat. She had changed her mind regarding the metal content in the knee saying it is not there now! Her reactions gave me the impression she was concerned at the position she had found herself in or she had conversed with a colleague over the knee problem.

We posed questions over notes she had in her possession relating to the x-rays and arthrogram that had been done at your hospital back in November 1988. Also the correspondence from Mr Majumdar to Professor Dandy dated 5 December 1988, when he showed concern over what was visible, to the medial aspect of the knee, in the 18/11/88 x-ray/Arthrogram report. She was told that Professor Dandy had operated in November 1989 and how my wife still had the problem after this operation. The physiotherapist at Newmarket had said there was still something left in but Dandy had refused saying it was all in her mind.

She was told that we had been informed by Mr Zeraati, on 5 November 1996, that my wife had a foreign body in her Right knee and he had gone on to say that Professor Dandy had missed it. He was later asked to be witness to what he had told us, he declined saying it was more than his job was worth.

We told her that both Mr Zeraati and Professor Saleh, had said on separate occasions that it could be part of a staple as used in the tuberosity transfer that had been left in during the 1987 operation. Neither has put this in writing although they have not denied it when it was put in writing to them.

Miss Rees did say that she did not think anyone would actually say what was in my knee, that they may never say and I might never be able to find out. I told her it seems odd that we are nearing the millennium, we can put man on the moon, yet no-one can identify what is in my wife’s knee.

The position was left that we were to furnish Miss Rees with medical notes from other hospitals so she could determine what line of treatment she was going to offer. We advised her that we were in possession of copies of the 1988 x-ray/Arthrogram films that were taken at your hospital.

We will be asking our local M. P., Mr Kevin Barron, to put the problem of not being able to establish through the N. H. S., what is in my wife’s knee, to Mr William Reid the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Maybe he will be in a better position to ask the right questions on our behalf.

We confirmed to Miss Rees that the reason we were attending your hospital was solely for identifying the knee problem and getting it put right.

I enclose a copy from M R I in Practice, that shows what happens when metal is present during an M R I scan.

My wife has seen many consultants over the past 11 years and we get the impression they are prepared to let her go on suffering, she has been told she must learn to live with it, she has also been told she will have to learn to walk on her hands, maybe you can help, in any event your comments would be appreciated.

Yours sincerely

E. P. Barnes (Mr).

Encl. 1

I lodged a formal complaint with the RDGH but months later I still hadn’t had a response. I requested an Independent Review.

I don’t think that I need to explain much more to you because I am copying letters to you here that refer to that Independent Review. I’ll say one thing though, the Convenor at the RDGH was solicitor Mr Ian Stephens of Parker Rhodes Solicitors in Rotherham and it was obvious from what followed that he came down on the side of the RDGH and was not “Independent” in any way shape or form!

The Report that followed the IRP Meeting was headed “Revised Report” when at the meeting I had been informed that it would first be a Draft Report seeking my comments before them preparing a Revised Report. I sought disclosure of the Draft Report but was categorically denied access to it. I am alleging here that it had been revises to get Amanda Rees off-the-hook!!! Transparency, what transparency???

You will also see from the copy correspondence below that nothing has changed in the NHS from those days.

First, see below copy of the list questions my husband asked at the Independent Review Meeting:

Comments for EPB to make at RDGH IRP Meeting 9/12/1999

Ÿ  Miss Amanda Rees may well be a well-qualified Orthopaedic Surgeon but it is our allegation that she has foregone the Patients welfare in favour of supporting her colleagues in the Medical Profession that have gone before in the treatment of my wife’s R/knee condition.

 

Ÿ  From a Legal, angle we cannot see how it matters what it is that is in my wife’s right knee, in any event it should not have been left there, but, we believe we should have the right to know exactly what is that has been left there, that is causing the pain. Do remember that my wife has gone along all these years believing she had a mind problem.

Ÿ  Does the panel believe it was appropriate for Miss Rees to say it was normal for lots of bits to get left in during surgery?

 

Ÿ  Was it appropriate for Miss Rees, during the 23/12/98 appointment, to state that the MRI Scanner must have moved the metal debris. To where does she think it has moved them?

Ÿ  Was it appropriate for Miss Rees to claim not to understand MRI and Arthrogram film?

 

Ÿ  Does the panel believe it appropriate for Miss Rees to know exactly what medical notes we were in receipt of, before coming to a decision to treat my wife’s Right knee?

 

Ÿ  Does the panel believe it appropriate for Miss Rees to note in my wife’s Hospital Notes for 23 December 98 that there may be metal debris as a result of previous surgery if she really believed that there was no metal present?

 

Ÿ  Does the panel believe it was appropriate at the 23/12/98 appointment for Miss Rees not to have ordered an x-ray report to be done when knowing the complexity of the case?

 

Ÿ  Does the panel believe it was appropriate for Miss Rees to have insisted that my wife see a pain management specialist prior to having the debris removed, when she was aware that Dr Renshaw had given an open appointment to see him and he had confirmed that surgery was needed first?

 

Ÿ  Does the panel believe it was appropriate after Miss Rees’ referral of my wife to Dr Atkinson, for Dr Atkinson to be surprised that my wife was under the impression she was only seeing him for assessment, after all, Miss Rees had informed us that was why my wife was seeing him, and, when he knew we had x-rays showing the foreign body he declined to see her saying it would be a waste of time?

 

Ÿ  Does the panel think it was appropriate, after the referral by Miss Rees to Dr Atkinson for Dr Atkinson to believe my wife was only seeing him for the treatment of a neuroma?

 

Ÿ  Does the panel believe it was appropriate for Miss Rees to assign my wife for low priority treatment, knowing that she had suffered since 1987 with the R/knee problem?

Ÿ  Does the panel believe it was appropriate in Miss Rees referral to Dr Atkinson dated 10 February 1999, for her to state: “that she was sending him copies of her letters here?”

 

Ÿ  Does the panel believe it was appropriate at the 23 December 1998 appointment for Miss Rees to suggest we obtain a proper diagnosis from our smart solicitor?

 

Does the panel believe it was appropriate for Miss Rees to deny my wife a proper diagnosis when hospitals now have high-tech equipment available?

Listed below is a copy of those who attended the IRP Meeting:

I R P

Monica Ann Barnes

Rotherham District General Hospital

Thursday 09 December 1999 14:00 hrs

              Panel:

              Mr Powell           (Lay Chair Person)

              Mr Stephen         (Convenor)

              Mrs Oldfield       (NHS Representative)

              Mr Chapman      (Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon)

              Dr Cope              (Consultant Radiologist)                                                                                

                                                                             * * *

              For Patient:

              Monica Ann Barnes     (Patient)

              Mr P Barnes               (Husband)

              Mr Mark Griffiths     (Complaints Officer, Community Health Council)

See below a copy of my letter 8 April 2000 addressed to Paul E Nesbitt Chief Executive of the RDGH:

Paul E Nesbitt (Chief Executive)

Rotherham District General Hospital
Moorgate Road
Oakwood
Rotherham S60 2UD

            08 April 2000

                 PEN/SG/JC                                             RDGH

Dear Mr Nesbitt

Re: Report on Independent Review Procedure as held at RDGH on 09 December 1999.

Your above reference was on a letter addressed to me dated 08 January 1999 that referred to you being aware of my complaint as lodged with Mr Stephen Griffiths, you go onto say that it will be fully investigated and a response to this will be made by you personally.

I am still waiting for the above mentioned response from you personally, will it be the one referring to the final report recently made by the Independent Review Panel?

I was informed by Mr Mark Griffiths, complaints officer, RCHC, that I would be receiving a draft of the report from the IRP before any such report be finalised. I understood from what he told me, that I would have an opportunity to comment on the content of the draft report before it was finalised. I was denied seeing any draft report and therefore denied option to comment before the final report was issued.

However, I am making my comments on the report here, together with surrounding issues, before you send me your long awaited letter of response as mentioned above.

Firstly, I objected to the Convener cutting down the terms of reference to only four particular areas of complaint, it was obviously designed by the convener to allow the panel navigate through, and whitewash over my complaints, which brings me to the next point. I had objected to the convener being a solicitor and being attached to a local firm of solicitors that had a Legal Aid Franchise for Medical Negligence and yet being allowed to convene an Independent Review Panel for a local hospital where there could well be a conflict of interests. The conflict of interests in this case being that a member of the Convener’s profession as a solicitor, was involved in preventing my negligence claim in 1989, that was against the ‘original’ operating surgeon who performed the patellectomy, from reaching a satisfactory conclusion.

I will now comment on the report made by Mr J A Chapman FRCS:

On the onset he states that it is apparent that Mr and Mrs Barnes are convinced that:

              1       The persisting symptoms were due to a calcified nodule.

              I agree with that statement.

              2       That this is due to something being left in her knee during previous surgery.

              This should read: left in her knee or surrounding area during previous surgery.

              3       That there is metal in the knee and/or the nodule.

              This should read:  That there are metal fragments in her knee, surrounding area,                        and/or nodule.

              4       That it must be possible to provide a “definite diagnosis of the foreign body.”

              This should read: ......a definite diagnosis of the content of the calcified nodule.

              5       That the medical profession in general are ganging up and conspiring to cover

                       up mistakes made by surgeons who have treated her in the past, Miss Rees

                       being included in this conspiracy. 

              I totally agree with the statement at No 5.

In the next paragraph he says that I have not considered that what the medical experts have said in the past may in fact have been the truth, rather than conspiring.

May I say here, that Professor Dandy told me in the early 1990s that I had a mind problem and the pain I was getting in my knee was all in my mind, he told my husband that I should seek the services of a psychiatrist for a very long time. I have had to live with this stigma hanging over me all these years, me thinking I had a mind problem, when all the time there was this calcified nodule in the knee area of my Right leg giving me the pain, together with the other flashes of metal fragments that made it as my knee bled internally on occasions after any lengthy walking. Now does that sound like a person that that hasn’t trusted the medical profession. I was unaware of any nodule or anything else for that matter until Mr Zeraati pointed it out to us in a 1991, and at that time current 1996 x-ray, at a private consultation. I had been told that there may have been a foreign body in 1989 but everyone I saw in the medical profession over the years dismissed that possibility.

If there has been no conspiracy and nothing to cover-up, then please tell me why the Bassetlaw Hospital are denying that the 19/08/91 x-ray, showing the calcified nodule to be there on that date, does not exist and has never existed, even after my husband held that particular x-ray in his hand when he identified it to two of the hospital’s employees and when at that point in time they promised him a copy of it.

A copy of that 19/08/91 x-ray report was provided at the IR and it is plain to see that it has been swapped over and what now reads as the report for the Right knee is actually the report for the left knee. They deleted the fact that the patella was absent from the Right knee so you cannot easily identify the swap. Now if that isn’t conspiracy then it is criminal, if not both.

It does matter that this point be made here, because it proves that I have been prevented from being informed of the existence of the calcified nodule that is in my Right knee as far back as 1991 and also 1989, Mr Zeraati told me that it had been in my knee in 1989 and Professor Dandy had missed it during the operation he had performed.

With regards to my providing Miss Rees with medical history notes that I had in my possession:

It was not until we had spoken with the NHS in Leeds and they had informed me that Miss Rees would be able to obtain all the medical notes that she would require, through the system, which, they said, was very fast.

The MRI scan report dated 24/2/98 was made available at the IR, Mr J A Chapman notes in his report that the MRI report does not mention the calcified nodule. This is in his subtitle, “History prior to referral to Rotherham DGH Oct. 1998.” I told them at the IR that I had been informed that this report was “Clinically Incorrect” and it had been so done to mislead.

Miss Rees claimed at the 23 December 98 consultation that she had telephoned Dr Nakielny, the author of the MRI report and this must have been that she realised it was clinically incorrect.

The appropriateness of Miss Rees investigations and subsequent clinical information given to Mrs Barnes at the consultation on 23 December and 10 February 1999:

On 23 December 1998 Miss Rees continued the conspiracy by having the  x-rays done on a machine that had faults. The Radiographer that took my x-rays said he didn’t know why she had asked for them to be taken on that particular machine, but he said, what the lady wants the lady gets. If it had not been a deliberate act, then after Miss Rees had examined the x-rays and discovered she could not distinguish metal fragments from the flaws would have returned me for further x-rays. If the act had not been deliberate then on the February consultation she would have had further x-rays done after conferring with the Radiologist. He should have realised they could not define the difference between fragments of metal from the flaws on the x-ray. I now believe, and you should also, that that was the real reason the x-rays were not reported on. You will also note that Miss Rees has written in my Medical History Notes, “there is no metal in the knee joint.” Now this statement is also made to mislead because it does not say there isn’t any metal fragments around the knee area, it just leaves that fact open to interpretation. We have also noted that there was no mention on the x-ray film that the x-rays were taken while weight bearing!

Now, the appropriateness of Miss Rees investigations and subsequent clinical information has to be incorrect because of her being unable to obtain the correct information due to faults on the x-ray film dated 23/12/98.

The appropriateness of the clinical diagnosis made as a result of the investigations and examinations undertaken on 23 December and 10 February 1999:

It is noted that Miss Rees has not made any mention of any RSD being responsible for my pain, in any of her reports.

It must follow that the appropriateness of the clinical diagnosis made as a result of the investigations and examinations undertaken on 23 December and 10 February 1999 were incorrect due to her not obtaining and examining fault free x-ray film.

The appropriateness of the waiting priority assigned to Mrs Barnes on 10 February 1999:

Under the circumstances, that being that I had been the victim of medical maltreatment by so-called professionals entrusted with my medical care over the past years, and the fact that I have had to suffer the chronic pain that restricted my quality of life for the past 11 years or so, I should have received top priority treatment as in doing so would have prevented the ongoing cost that must by now be considerable in these investigations and those that may now have to follow.

It was inappropriate for Miss Rees to assign me for low priority surgery, under the above circumstances.

The appropriateness of Miss Amanda Rees referral to pain clinic:

Miss Rees had obtained my notes from the Bassetlaw Hospital, and in particular those from Dr Renshaw in their Pain Management Clinic. She had seen the letter from Dr Renshaw to the hospital fracture clinic dated 17/4/97, it stated that he had seen me and recommended that I should receive surgery first, then, pain management if found to be necessary.

You will see that there has been no mention of the letter Dr Atkinson wrote to Miss Rees on 29/4/99. Dr Atkinson says in this letter, second paragraph, “that given the chronicity of the problem and given the fact that she has been seen in Pain Clinics in Huntingdon and Bassetlaw, together with the fact that she has open access to Dr Renshaw at Bassetlaw, I saw little point in seeing her at this stage, and this was agreed on discussion with Mr Barnes.”

It is noted that Mr Chapman, when referring to the letter written by Dr Renshaw dated 17/4/97, has deliberately rewritten the letter into his report with the same intentions of those other members of his profession, to mislead. It is written in the letter of Dr Renshaw dated 17/4/97, that after surgery I should return to see him to be reassessed. It does not at any point mention “inflammatory Medication.” Mr Chapman has inserted these words to mislead the Panel!

The content of the above mentioned letters prove that the appropriateness of Miss Amanda Rees referring me to Pain Management was incorrect at this stage as  both Pain Management specialists say it may not be necessary after I have received surgery.

Mr Chapman also writes into his report, when referring to a letter from Mr Harris, a Medical Expert in Harley Street, London, dated 25/2/98, that it ‘apparently states’ “there could be loose bodies within the joint.” Now the letter was included in evidence passed to the convenor and I would certainly have expected Mr Chapman to have read that letter himself, in which case he should have reported that it ‘actually states’ and not as he claims it reads, ‘apparently states’        He has done this to mislead the panel.

Mr Chapman, when referring to the letter from Mr King in London, dated 26/6/97, fails to mention that the letter states that, “she has a long-standing problem with her knee for which various accounts have been given but certainly is associated with tender nodules on the medial side with quite excruciating pain when she goes from flexion back to extension. In my view she needs investigations. She needs confirmation of reflex sympathetic dystrophy.” He subsequently goes onto say, when referring to my Right knee, “she needs an MRI of her knee because I do not think the diagnosis has been properly made. although she has loose bits apparently on the x-rays the ones that I feel probably are not actually within the joint and it is so important to know exactly what one is dealing with.”

Mr Chapman has failed to report on Mr Kings letter correctly with deliberate intentions of misleading the panel.

Mr Chapman has also misreported on the letter from Dr Sidaway, a consultant Radiologist, he claims he has reported on x-rays dated 13/2/92 and Mr Chapman has seemed fit to tag it onto his account of Mr Kings letter date, however, Dr Sidaway has never reported on any of my x-rays at any point in time and actually confirms this in the letter 12 February 1998. Mr Chapman has done this to mislead the Panel.

Mr Harris, the Harley Street Medical Expert, did commission x-rays to be done of my Right knee only, on 13 July 1992 and these x-rays were reported on by a Dr Mourad, a consultant Radiologist in Harley Street. He says in his report, when referring to the Right knee, “that there could be loose bodies within the joint.”

Mr Chapman, when writing his report, under subheading Re-referral to Orthopaedic Department in October 1998, states, halfway down the page, “She had a previous tibial osteotomy transfer and patellectomy and that she has had problems with pains in her knee ever since.”

Mr Chapman has written this to mislead the Panel because I had the tibial osteotomy transfer in March 1969 and I have had the current stabbing pain in my right knee only after receiving the patellectomy operation in September 1987.

Mr Chapman does mention Miss Rees referring in the referral letter to Dr Atkinson, and that she said, “I am actually sending you a copy of the relevant letters from Mr Dandy and myself here.” Now, when my husband spoke to Dr Atkinson on 27 April 1999, he was not aware of the foreign body/calcified nodule being in my knee because he said he understood my problem to be a neuroma and he was surprised that I had x-rays at home showing the foreign body etc. Under the circumstances and after what I have just perceived from reading this report, I really do have my doubts about the copy referral letter that is contained within my notes as to being the ‘original’ referral letter as sent to Dr Atkinson. I believe that it could have actually been a copy of the letter she was now sending and he was to dispose of the ‘original’ letter of referral on receipt of this one. Miss Rees claims it was a typing/translation error but I find it hard to believe that whenever an irregularity such as this is discovered it is always explained away by blaming the dedicated and reliable typist. In any event I think Miss Rees has done quite enough towards conspiring to cover the backs of her colleagues without this issue.

Re: Mr Chapmans opinion,

At item 1 he claims that the changes, seen on the 23/12/98 x-rays, collaborate his theory relating to my suffering from reflex sympathetic dystrophy, yet these x-ray films are reported in the review report by Dr Cope as “being technically poor with limited coning” and are so bad that he claims the quality of the film is due to dirty/damaged intensifier screens, he claims that it makes identifying metal fragments in the film difficult and the Radiology Department should review its quality control. You must agree that Mr Chapman was unable to diagnose reflex sympathetic dystrophy from examining such a poor quality x-ray film?

I am asking that you do not pass the buck onto the Radiology Department because the Radiologist, on 23/12/98, prior to taking my x-rays said, “I don’t know why she is having it done on this machine for, but, he said, what the lady wants the lady gets”. By lady he meant Miss Rees. It is obvious that the Radiographer was aware of the faults/poor condition of the x-raying machine before he took my x-rays but he was only carrying out his precise orders/instructions.

I am claiming here that Miss Amanda Rees actually set me up for having poor quality films taken so-as not to diagnose the metal fragments/flashes that are around the knee area and in the calcified nodule. Also, the x-rays were not marked as being taken while weight bearing.

I am not even bothering to waste anymore of my time or yours by commenting on the report by Dr L H Cope.

At the 23/12/98 consultation and at the point where I handed Miss Rees the MRI film, she did say that she did not understand MRI film.

At the same consultation, and when asked for an honest diagnosis, Miss Rees did say I would have to obtain one of those from my smart solicitor.

At the same consultation, and after we had realised that Miss Rees was becoming evasive, my husband then switched on his Dictaphone that he carries to log details of any meetings that may need attention and the meeting was recorded. We informed the Panel at the IR that we had this recording but we also understand that we would require Miss Rees permission before we could replay it back to them. If Miss Rees will give permission then you may here the recording for yourselves, that way you will know exactly the attitude that Miss Rees had at that consultation.

Our Local MP was contacted when I was at my wits end at the way I had been treated by both the NHS and the private medical profession. He did say to demand to see an Orthopaedic surgeon at the RDGH seeing as I had received treatment for my knee there in the past.

The Radiographer that took the x-rays has not yet been allowed to give his version as to why the particular machine was used. Maybe he will respond like Staff Nurse Patricia Smith did in her version of events to the media, published on 03 September 1999, she refused to take the rap for the errors of the doctor. I mention it here because it seems to be more of the rule than of exception at the RDGH.

The ‘X-ray Request Form’ for the RDGH x-rays taken on 23/12/98 was not in with my medical notes that had been requested under the access to medical records act 1990. I have since been furnished with a copy and discovered that it records there been 3 x-rays taken on that date yet only 2 x-rays were sent. Could you investigate this irregularity for me please as there is obviously also a breach of x-ray safety rules to be addressed here.

Mr Nesbitt, if you allow this report to be the “Final” report then you are sanctioning the corrupt actions of the medical profession and the Independent Review Procedure has been nothing but a farce. I feel very strongly about the way in which the facts have been portrayed to, and by the Panel, in an attempt to cover-up the truth as to what has actually happened here. I believe the truth of the matter would be very much within the interests of the public.

Kind regards.

Yours sincerely

M A Barnes (Mrs).
cc.

Mr Kevin Barron MP for Rother Valley.

Mr D Powell
Mr I J Stephen
Mrs M Oldfield
Dr L H Cope
Mr J H Chapman
Miss A J Rees
Regional Director of Public Health
Regional Director of Performance Management
Mr Mark Griffiths (Complaints Officer) RCHC

This true story continues …………..  but on trawling through all the paperwork on what has gone before, it looks as if I will still be blogging on this case in 2020.

NB: All copyrights reserved