CPSO: transparency in the complaint process
Sue’s Views on the News
September 13, 2015http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2015/09/cpso-transparency-in-complaint-process.html
2015 April 26. Ear/ENT excerpt from letter to CPSO Investigator
Apr 26, 2015
Dear Ms [CPSO Investigator],
Thanks for your letter dated April 13, 2015.
In your letter, you say,
“I have learned during the course of this investigation that although you saw [the ENT specialist in August, 2013; it appears that his report was not sent to [your family doctor/gp] until March, 2014.”
That’s simply not true, according to what [my gp] told me when I asked to see it originally. As I have said previously, I never did get to see a copy of the original [ENT] report (of Aug 20, 2013 appt), the reason being, according to [my gp,] that it was for him to read, not me. So even though he and I discussed the ear problem at length on March 4 (I believe you put that into your list as March 8, 2014, by mistake) it never came up as an issue, that he had not had a report from [the ENT specialist] in the several months since the appointment. Is it usual for doctors to refer patients for a second opinion when the first has not bothered to give an opinion in writing?
Could it be that [the ENT specialist] did not realize you were asking for the original report, not the revised one, when you asked him for my health record (as you say, in your letter).
To refresh your memory, while explaining to [my gp] about my ear problem, I had made a point of telling him, half joking, that the only thing not wrong with my ear was my hearing. He then referred me to [the ENT specialist], an ENT specialist. I didn’t want to start off the ear appointment with [the ENT specialist] on Aug 20, 2013, by having a routine hearing test, in the hearing clinic where he conducted his business, where people of my age usually go because they have hearing problems. The girl behind the desk said I didn’t have to have a hearing test, when I called to confirm the appointment. Yet she made me the appointment anyway, as I discovered when I went for the appointment with [the ENT specialist] . Once again I asked if I was required to and she said No. So I declined. She said that was okay. But I got the impression from [the ENT specialist], glaring at me when he mentioned receiving both copies of the ultrasound, that all was not okay. The first ultrasound, as I described in my last letter, had been done incorrectly, and so was redone, with only the wording of the referral changed to assist the technician. But both ultrasound reports were sent to [the ENT specialist] before I went to my appointment with him.
. . . . . . .
I am not happy that you are ignoring the evidence and apparently taking the ENT specialist’s word on the matter of the missing report. I thought it it was your aim to be objective. Moreover, I would hope that my focusing mainly on this issue in this letter does not mean that my other concerns about [my gp’s] behaviour are going to be trivialized or ignored.
END of EXCERPT