Copy of Shand FSHD page 1

Copy of Shand FSHD1

Copy of CONCLUSION1

CONCLUSION of PATIENTS RIGHTS CONSULTATION

Nobody could deny that the aims of the Consultation Document are admirable, but will they make any difference? Rights are going to be extremely costly.

Furthermore, it puts an onus on the patient (similar to the Disability Discrimination Act – less than a handful of cases raised). It is simply going to be too much to ask an ill person to try to pursue their Rights. And there is fear of repercussions.

If it was broadened, so that other people who witnessed such treatment could report it, it may have some merit, but there is the problem of witnesses. There has to be a quick resolution. None of this “we will reply to your letter in 28 days”. This is why I would suggest a Patients’ Jury, composed of a wide cross section of patients and paramedical people, who are interested enough to give of their time. It would come to a decision within three months of any incident, and report back to the Health Board, where appropriate action could be taken. It would require power. It would mean the current system was overhauled and improved.

The printed notices in all major health centres that the staff will not accept abuse has a very negative effect on the patients, who would like the option to similar signage. It is not a one way street, and with the poor quality of the communication skills being taught, it is really unsurprising that some people cannot contain their frustration. I do not condone it – I merely say it is to be expected under the circumstances.

Try watching your relative being starved to death. Try watching someone who is very ill and unable to help themselves not being given a wash or any real physical support. Anger and frustration are natural reactions, and if your concern is met with a “couldn’t–care-less” response, the tinder will be lit.

When hoists were first introduced, I worked with a Ward Sister who was very concerned at the lack of patient contact that was implicated with this, and the adverse reaction this would have on the patients’ psychology. This aspect requires a greater degree of consideration and reflection today.

MOST IMPORTANTLY: The patient simply wants to feel safe and be cared about.

Hi-tech will offer many answers to many problems, but it cannot care.

There are four main priorities.

1. The teaching of Communication and Courtesy.


2. Re-establishing Cleaning and Hygiene.


3. The education of feeding the patient.


4. Treating the patient as a person.

We were trained to think of every patient as a relative, and to only treat him/her the way you would family. With Universities having taken over the instruction to a large part, these niceties have fallen by the wayside. The loyalty that was felt to your training hospital was immense, and it was unthinkable to behave in a way that would bring it into disrepute. That ensured caring and courtesy at all times. That was the corner stone on which the whole ethos stood. It has been removed.

If Patient Rights are introduced:

• They cannot make one iota of difference without systems in place.

• They do not address the root of the problem.

• A torrent of protocols and rules prevent effective application.

I urged Margaret to tell of her difficulties and problems – to make people aware. She laughed, saying, “My days of fighting are over – besides, nobody would believe me!”

Therein lies the tragedy.

© Linda Jane McLean R.G.N., O.N.C., DIP.COM.CARE