[log in to unmask],Net wrote at 23:28 on 02/10/98
about "Re: Independent Review complaints procedure":
-----------------------------
>Adrian asked: Had the convenor of the panel managed to circulate the
notes
>of the
>case in adequate time before the case?
>
>Good question! I don't know the answer. But even if they first read the
>notes that morning when the family gave their side of the story, they
>should have been more clued up by the afternoon. I'm not talking of
rocket
>science here; just a startling lack of basic knowledge and
understanding.
>John Apps
>
-----------------------------
Hmmm.
If they were drawing payment and not performing to a standard that
one could reasonably expect then action might be taken to determine
the method of selection, appointment and training of the members of
the panel, and to see if changes chould be made in this.
The Ombudsman just might become interested, but presumably the chief
exec of the HA is the first point of call.
The LMC, and of course the local division of the BMA also have a
proper interest in this.
One should be careful to stick to objective matters as much as
possible.
I note a report elsewhere that a panel were criticised for not
keeping adequate notes - chairmen of tribunals are expected to keep
careful notes not verbatim but of all the evidence that is produced
and of the discussion of it - and it is clearly the case that this
should enable the members of the tribunal and those appearing at it,
as well as an appeal authority, in the future to understand how the
conclusions of the tribunal were arrived at in order to determine if
there were errors.
--- OffRoad 1.9r registered to Adrian Midgley
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|