Following a complaint to the hospital where I received such appalling treatment for my broken foot 18 months ago, I have received a letter from the chief exec. acknowledging that my treatment "has fallen short of our aims." Some changes have been made, including staff training sessions in A&E regarding assessing patient's needs when they leave the department.
They also recognised that some of the administrative and waiting times issues were being addressed.
He points out repeatedly that my injury is very rare and that they are unlikely to see such a case more than once year. I accept this and knew this from my own researches, but it does not excuse the registrar ignoring my concerns and wanting to discharge me.
However, I am now faced with a dilemma over the clinical issues, as the feedback in the letter from the consultant is, to my mind, simply not true. He is maintaining that the treatments that I have now had from a specialist hospital (and the surgery that is contemplated) had been considered by him - which seems very unlikely as at my last consultation with him he actually said that there were no fractures (there were 2!) and asked why I was using a crutch. There is a discrepancy here, and it is clear to me that there was a misdiagnosis which he is trying to cover up. He offers an apology for not conveying to me the long recovery time to be expected and the possible treatment options if it did not settle; when in fact he discharged me as being OK!
What would you do? - let sleeping dogs lie and assume that having been the subject of a complaint he will be more vigilant next time? Point out the discrepancy in a reply to the chief exec?
What was your favourite board game as a child?



