HCCC

This aspect of the operation of the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission, just another one, is quite absurd.

When someone lodges a complaint about a health care worker, the Commission sends a copy of the complaint to the health care worker concerned, asking for a response, but copies of any responses received back are never made available to the complainant, NEVER!

It’s like, during a court case, the prosecution lawyers being asked to leave the court while the defence lawyers present their case – ALMOST UNBELIEVABLE!

We don’t know whether this is something imposed by the legislators, or an idea that Commissioner Dawson and her people have come up with.

The result, as a number of our readers have experienced, is that the complainees, (if there is such a word?) tell lie after lie after lie – lies that the complainants could easily demolish if given the opportunity, but the only things they learn about what the complainees have said is bits and pieces included in the decision they receive from the HCCC after the HCCC has made it’s decision.

And even if the complainant decides to ask for a review of it’s decision, making it is made unnecessarily difficult by the fact that he or she still doesn’t know exactly what the complainee has said. We know – from experience.

In many cases, perhaps in most cases, all that would ever be needed is that the complainant’s complaint and the complainees’ response be made publicly available to the people of New South Wales to enable them to better decide whether consulting the health care worker concerned might be a good idea or not.

To us, it’s just another Berejiklian Government joke.

info@questionsmisc.info.

If you Google, “NSW Health Care Complaints Commission,” one of the things you learn from the results it that 51 of the people of NSW have provided Google reviews on it. These can be read by clicking on this link.

This is what appears, exactly:-

From this, readers could be excused for thinking that those providing these reviews have given the Commission an average of 1.3. stars out of 5 – but this isn’t actually the case. The way in which Google reviews work is that those providing reviews HAVE to provide 1 star out of 5, and having provided this 1 star out of 5, it’s then a matter of how may stars out of 4 they give – in a sense the first star doesn’t count. So that, in fact, the Commission gets an average 0f .3 of a star out of 4, in other words, significantly less that 1 out of 10.

It would be interesting to see how any of these people would react if they were asked, “Why did you provide a 1 out of 10 rating for your experience in making a complaint to the HCCC?” But this is not going to happen – no one in the whole Berejiklian Government is cares.

In the real world, Sue Dawson, wh0 was first made the Commissioner in December, 2015, would have lost her job years ago. But, in the Berejiklian Government world, she was actually reappointed for another 5 years last October.

info@questionsmisc.info.

A contribution put together with one of our readers.

I had been referred to Dr Kerrie Meades, Ophthalmologist, for help with the double vision I was experiencing – it had developed to the point where I was a danger to myself and others on the road when driving a car, I could have had a bad accident and nearly did.

So I spent 3 or 4 hours in Meades’ rooms, seeing her, one of her colleagues, and various others, at a cost of 3 or 400 dollars – only to learn nothing. All that happened is that I kept being told that double vision could have serious causes which required extensive investigation, investigations that went on and on and on.

Eventually, I gave up on her and her people, and, some months later, I saw another Ophthalmologist, who in a consultation that cost less than $140, solved all my problems in 5 minutes, quite literally.

Firstly, after briefly reviewing the history of my double vision, he told me that it was incredibly unlikely that it was due to anything serious, but that, if I wanted to make sure, I could have an MRI of my brain, which I did, and it was clear. And secondly, that to solve the practical problems of my double vision I could have my Optician put prisms in my glasses, costing virtually nothing, and when I did this, it was like a miracle, it was as though I no longer had double vision. Meades and her people should have mentioned this in the first five minutes, of course, but hadn’t, in 3 or 4 hours.

I was particularly bitter about the fact that I’d spent a number of extra months in which, as I’ve said, I was a danger to my self and others when driving a car and could have had a bad accident and nearly did.

So, although I’d had had experiences in the past in which I’d found the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission to be completely and utterly useless, I decided to make complaint about Meades to them, thinking that, this time, at least, I wouldn’t be told that I had no basis to complain.

But the response to my initial complaint was that, although I’d wasted 3 or 4 hours and 3 or 4 hundred dollars, I DID have no basis to complain – and, in effect, that the fact that I’d had such a different experience with another Ophthalmologist wasn’t relevant. And, in response to my request for a review, I got the letter shown below from Commissioner Sue Dawson herself.

In brief I was told that, “Two doctors having different opinions and action plans about a patient does not necessarily mean that either practioner’s conduct is unreasonable.”

Of course, in the real world, authors of such rubbish wouldn’t last 5 minutes in their jobs. But not in the Berejiklian Government’s world!!! – they just don’t care. They’ve even just recently granted Dawson another five year term!!!

Email us at info@questionsmisc.info.

One of A/Prof Andrew J Brooks’ patients had been referred to him for help with what is called the “frequency problem,” – he was having to get up 2 or 3 times a night to go to the toilet. Brooks recommended and carried out an operation called a TURP, which, firstly, didn’t help his patient with his “frequency problem” in any way, as Brooks himself subsequently admitted in writing, and which, secondly, inevitably results in severe damage to the sex life of those who have it – it’s for the rest of their lives, it ALWAYS happens and can’t be reversed.

As we’re sure our readers will agree, it’s hard to imagine anything much worse – treatment which didn’t help in any way and which inflicted serious life long damage, all at a cost of more than $6,000, for hospital expenses and  Brooks $3,200 fee for less than an hour’s work, even after Medicare refunds. And when the patient lodged a complaint about Dr Brooks with  Commissioner Sue Dawson and her people at the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission, he received a decision  which can be summed up in one sentence in it – “WE HAVE NOT IDENTIFIED A DEFICIENCY IN THE CLINICAL CARE AND TREATMENT PROVIDED TO YOU BY DR BROOKS.”

What??? Yes, it’s true, readers – Richard Murdoch, one of Sue Dawson’s officers came to the decision that, even though the patient still had the health problem Brooks had been supposed to fix, exactly the same, and had been damaged for life, that the patient had no basis to complain. If readers don’t believe this, by clicking on this link, they can be taken to Murdoch’s decision in full.

To try and make the slightest sense of this nonsense, Murdoch had postulated that, somewhere along the line, Brooks had properly explained to his patient that his treatment would damage him for life and might not help him in any way – both of which happened, and that the patient had responded with something like, “I don’t care.”

Readers, how likely do you think it is that this actually happened? To us, it requires us to believe that the patient was stark raving mad!

In a letter Brooks sent to the HCCC, he had said, and we quote, “I would USUALLY discuss the alterations to sexual function and the loss of ejaculation.” It seems to us that from this, even he is not claiming that he actually explained these things to his client in this case. Don’t you think, readers?

So the patient asked for a review of Murdoch’s decision, and got a response which you can read by clicking on this link. There are so many things wrong with this response that we intend write them up in a separate post, as time allows. But basically the three ladies involved in the review, obviously Sue Dawson, “Commissioner,” and Jane Probert, who describes herself as “Director, Resolution and Customer Engagement,” and Leanne Evans, who describes herself a “Senior Review Officer,” seem happy to ignore that the facts that Brooks’ treatment hadn’t helped his patient in any way and had damaged him for life, on the basis that it was all the patient’s fault in that he had ignored the warnings he’d been given that these things might happen.

(One has to question whether females could ever fully appreciate the damage the patient had suffered, as a male?)

As you can see from the following paragraph, they purport to be “sitting on the fence,” as the old saying goes, unable to determine who to believe.

That they should claim this is, of course, is utter nonsense – they’ve clearly come down, fairly and squarely, on Brooks side, believing every word he’s said, at the same time dismissing anything the patient may have said to the contrary, as lies.

You would think that it would be reasonable for the HCCC people to expect Brooks to be able provide iron clad proof that he’d properly explained to his patient that his treatment mightn’t help, (as it turned out,) and that he would be damaged for life – something in writing at least. But no, Brooks clearly knew he didn’t have to bother with such things, presumably because he’d done the same thing to other patients before, and that, if they’d complained, they’d also been told they had no basis to complain, leaving Brooks free to go on his merry way, getting his greedy hands on his $3,200 fees for less than an hour’s work, over and over again, without a worry in the world.

Readers, in case you haven’t realised it before, that’s how it is with Sue Dawson and her people in the HCCC.

And no one cares – least of all Ms Dawson and any of her people, or anyone in the whole Berejiklian Government. If any of them ever provided the slightest indication that they cared, we’d be in a state of shock.

info@questionsmisc.info.

This decision was received on 1 April, 2021.

info@questionsmisc.info.

One of the things we’re always saying is that Ms Dawson and her people at the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission are geniuses at coming up with reasons why they should find that people who, while they may think they have a basis to complain about a  NSW doctor, don’t, in fact, have one. And you couldn’t get a better example of this, than the following.

A couple of years ago, one of our readers had a face-to-face consultation with a doctor in a NSW Government Hospital in which he was given advice which left out something which could have been of considerable significance, (and which turned out later was of considerable significance,) and that when our reader realised this, he emailed the doctor asking for a comment, the doctor didn’t even acknowledge his email, and so, our reader, assuming that if it was of considerable significance, the doctor would have got back to him, decided it mustn’t have mattered after all, which could have ended in disaster, but, by shere luck alone, didn’t.

So what did Ms Dawson and her people come up with this time?

We believe our readers could  have dozens of guesses, perhaps even hundreds, and still wouldn’t come up with what Ms Dawson and her people came up with.

Firstly, they declared that it was all the readers fault for taking any notice of what the doctor had said, when, according to the doctor, he’d specifically told his patient NOT to do this, but to get proper advice from someone else as soon as he possibly could – this when, (a) it wasn’t true, it was a lie, and when, (b) surely, if it was true, it would be a basis, in itself, for a successful complaint.

Secondly, that again it was all the readers’ fault – the doctor hadn’t got the reader’s email because he’d used an email address which was on the Sydney University’s website when he should have used the one which was available from AHPRA, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency – but when our reader emailed AHPRA to see, out of interest, whether this was so, he was told  that AHPRA DIDN’T have an email address for the doctor concerned, and that they had no idea what the HCCC was talking about!!!???

We have two concerns about this.

Firstly, that Dawson could be emailed until the cows come home asking if she thought the handling of this complaint was good enough, and you wouldn’t even get a response. From which, to us it follows, that if she thought it WAS good enough, she shouldn’t continue being the Commissioner, and that if she thought it WASN’T good enough, but has done nothing about it, she shouldn’t continue being the Commissioner.

And secondly, and far more importantly, no one in the whole Berejiklian government seems to have any concerns about these goings on.

No readers, while Dawson remains the Commissioner, (and in October, 2020, she was granted a further 5 year term,) and NSW continues to have the Berejiklian Government in control, we have to get used to the idea that these goings on will continue and continue.

info@questionsmisc.info.

Over the years, we’ve done this exercise SO often, and have just done it again – checked on a particular period to find out how many of the complaints about a NSW doctor received by the HCCC during that particular period lead to one of the HCCC’s media releases?

(Readers, if you want to find this out for yourself, the best way is to start with this link – https://www.hccc.nsw.gov.au/publications/mediareleases.)

And in April and May, 2021, i.e. in the last 8 weeks, during which the HCCC would have received hundreds and hundreds of complaints about NSW doctors, there have been Media Releases in response to only 5 of them – 2 of whom have been found guilty of misconduct in relation to drugs, and 3 of whom have been found to have perhaps done not a very good job.

And, when, in relation to any particular period, you ask questions like, “How many complaints did the HCCC receive about NSW doctors?,” “How is it that there are Media Releases on so few of them?” and “What happened to the rest?,” the best you can hope for is that you will be referred to the 210 pages in the HCCC’s annual report to find out for yourself. And when, recently, we went to page 39 in this report, after we’d been told that if we went to this page we’d get details on such and such, we found this claim was false, no such details existed on this page.

info@questionsmisc.info.

Over more than 20 years now, we’ve done SO much work on the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission and the people in it, and in the end, there can be only one conclusion – that making a complaint to them is a complete waste of your time and effort.

On the 8 July 2020, this was sent in an email to Commissioner Dawson:-

and nearly 12 months later, we’re not even close to getting any sort of answer to it.

We’re inviting any of our readers who’ve had an experience of making a complaint to Sue Dawson and her people which wasn’t a complete waste of their time and effort – email us at info@questionsmisc.info. We’ll be shocked if we hear from even one person.

A letter, just, (on 27 May, 2021,) emailed to Ms Sue Dawson, the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission’s Commissioner, with copies to Jane Probert and Leanne Evans, two of her officers, in response to their response to a request one of our readers had made for a decision that the HCCC had made, that he had no basis to complain about treatment he had received from A/Prof. Andrew J. Brooks, Urologist.

The complaint I lodged was that, as an INEVITABLE consequence of the treatment Dr Brooks had recommended and carried out on me, surgery called a TURP, I suffered severe damage, which is for the rest of my life, it can’t be reversed, (about which I’m SO angry, particularly when I’m having sex,) and that I WASN’T warned that this happened, not just sometimes, but that it ALWAYS happened!!!!!

In response to a request one of our readers made for a review of the HCCC’s decision that he had no basis to complain about treatment he’d received from A/Prof Andrew J. Brooks, Urologist, on 20 May, 2021, our reader received the following – to which he responded with this.

info@questionsmisc.info