Thanks to the hard work of the BLPT Information Governance Department, I today received copies of the notes from the Professionals' meeting and the notes from the investigator into my complaint (the third time round!)
The professionals' meeting notes are helpful and generally positive - M provided the negative voice, justifying herself more than supporting me, but all the others at the meeting were very supportive.
The investigator's report includes some very negative statements.
Positively it does include apologies. But, in line with other communications, it criticises me for contacting the Trust repeatedly (ignoring the fact, for example, that my second series of contact was in an effort to get a transfer of care to a different CMHT. Indeed, the investigat0r states his desire to "apologise for the internal machinations and unprofessionalism at times which has caused you unnecessary extra strain and concern. ") Nonetheless, he cites the number of times I contacted the Trust as if this was a fault on my part and unreasonable. It's possible to see it that way, I suppose, if you ignore the reasons (something this Trust is good at doing).
It declares that the letters I received provided "factual answers to issues and concerns" - ignoring the effect on me of the way the answers were presented. It also ignores the fact that several of the "factual" responses were factually inaccurate.
It agrees (hooray!) that M should not ahve been the investigator. It also comments that, "All relevant and non-relevant information has been considered in relation to the issues and concerns at hand, unfortunately there does need to be an acceptance that initially this was not the case" (in the original responses). In other words, the initial responses were not based on a full consideration of the facts.
The most offensive comment, to me, in this report, was the following:
"The investigator does want it noted that on the 18/07/07 at 09:24, the complainant did send an inflammatory email to Maria Guest stating ‘you have previously refused to offer me the support I have sought.’ ‘It is your actions that have caused my mental health to deteriorate’ ‘Your inability to offer me emotional support,’ and ‘I do not wish to hear from you directly again, please. Please do not email me, phone me or write to me.’ These comments are deemed not at all helpful towards trying to resolve the situation of support and in terms of trying to alleviate the situation and find middle ground, completely inappropriate."
OK, so that was the email I sent to M after I had told her previously I did not believe she could offer support. I had told her manager I did not wish for support from her or her team and he had offered that as the only solution. My psychologist had told M's line manager he believed it was in my best intersted to be transferred to another team and the line manager ignored that too. At that point M sent me an email telling me she was able and "willing" to provide support. I was incredibly distressed at this point, having been accused by M of being defamatory and personal. I wasn't trying to resolve the situation, I was trying to escape it, and politely trying to state my wishes had achieved nothing. I don't agree it was inflammatory. I stand by all I said.
Of course, the declaration re discrimination remains that I was not discriminated against because there is no written evidence of such discrimination.
There's a very very interesting observation about CPA. You may remember I tried to get a copy of my CPA while my then care coordinator was absent. The investigator states,
"The Care Plan Approach (CPA) has been a source of tremendous procrastination and confusion, the cause of which appears to be the lack of communication between the Service Provider and the Service-User."
Now, is this meant to suggest that it was my fault I did not receive a Care plan? Or is this a more general statement? In other words, is the claim that I did not get my Care plan because I failed to communicate with BLPT and they with me, or that this is what generally happens? In either case, I had been asking for my CPA for several months. Apparently it was never completed before S went off sick. I don't think that is my case, or down to poor communication; it's down to someone else not doing the job they were supposed to and telling me they had. To try to imply I am to blame says a lot about the investigator.
There's a lot of covering up and deflecting of the real issues (and of real apportioning of blame) here.
How far is someone who is mentally unwell, asking for support and not getting it, to blame for problems perceived as being caused by asking repeatedly for support. Stuff for another post, I think. For now, I'm off for a massage.
Oh, and a breakthrough - I AM angry.