Re: your letters of 23rd February and 11th March
It is with increasing dissatisfaction that I write again regarding the treatment of partner, Miss Kate Heffer.
Turning first to the letter dated 23/02/2010, you write that “we need to agree a way forward that will enable us to provide the help and support Kate needs” and go on to list four suggestions. Unfortunately, neither Kate nor myself have any confidence that you are able to provide any help or support. On current showing, your intervention in Kate’s care after the referral by Doctor Krohl has been almost wholly counter-productive.
Kate does not feel that she gains any benefit from seeing the CPN. She finds the process difficult and distressing, and I feel that I must concur with her assessment. A visit to the CPN does nothing to help Kate and I develop a better understanding of her condition, nor does it provide her with any relief from her symptoms. The stress involved in these appointments only serves to worsen her condition in the short term and risks precipitating the crisis we all (presumably) hope to avoid. Kate had, I thought, made this clear to the psychiatrist we saw recently. We certainly left that appointment with the impression that the psychiatrist also believed that any further CPN appointments would be unnecessary and potentially harmful. We were also left under the impression that a new care co-ordinator would be assigned, given the complete breakdown in trust between Mr Sawmy and ourselves. You will therefore understand our disappointment at receiving Mr Sawmy’s letter of 11/03/10 offering Kate a further appointment with him at Lake House.
Let me reiterate: further CPN appointments – whether at Lake House or anywhere else – will do Kate more harm than good. It should not need adding that these unnecessary and distressing appointments only erode Kate’s faith in the services you offer and make it that much harder for me to persuade her to attend those appointments that might actually help.
At her recent psychiatrist’s appointment, Kate agreed to see a psychotherapist for a further assessment and to explore drug-free options regarding the treatment and management of her condition. I find it odd that, given the urgency you apparently feel regarding Kate’s condition, no appointment has yet been forthcoming.
On a happier note, I would like to extend our thanks and appreciation to the psychiatrist who saw Kate on that day. I regret that I have forgotten her name (it may have been Dr Gopaul?), but do recall her patience and understanding.
Returning to your letter of 23/02/10 and the need to agree a way forward, I would like to offer the following counter-suggestions:
1) Kate is not to have any further CPN appointments. Whilst I understand your professional desire to make periodic face-to-face contact to ensure Kate’s safety, such visits are not appropriate, welcome or useful in Kate’s case, as we have made clear over and over again.
2) Kate will be assigned a new care co-ordinator as soon as possible, who will make themselves known to Kate in writing. Kate’s new care co-ordinator will not attempt to contact Kate by telephone – as you really should have been aware, Kate is usually unable to use a telephone.
3) I will continue to monitor Kate’s mental health closely, and will inform her care co-ordinator if her symptoms escalate.
4) Kate will attend an appointment with a psychotherapist (as agreed at her psychiatrist’s appointment) and Kate and I will liaise with her new care co-ordinator regarding any recommendations that arise from the psychotherapist’s assessment.
Finally, both Kate and I expect a genuine apology for the mishandling of her care to date. Apologising for the distress caused by the unwarranted home visit and the unnecessary referral to a social worker is disingenuous. We expect an apology for the actions themselves. Kate missed her appointment in January due to the bad weather (Lake House closed early that day, so Kate’s appointment would likely have been cancelled anyway), and we had re-booked another appointment long before “the team” decided to escalate the situation, as Mr Sawmy was well aware at the time. If the CMHT cannot admit its mistakes, we cannot have any confidence in its ability to meet Kate’s needs.
I am saddened that I must once again write regarding this matter,
(Never recieved a reply to this letter)
No comments:
Post a Comment