• All threads and posts regarding Coronavirus COVID-19 can now be found in our new area specifically for Coronavirus COVID-19 discussion.

    You can directly access this area >here<.

CHC - Out of Panel verification?

Louise7

Registered User
Mar 25, 2016
1,794
There are various issues relating to Mum's CHC assessment and amongst the paperwork is reference to the decision regarding CHC eligibility being made by 'out of panel verification'. Does anyone know what this means, and what would be the deciding criteria with regards to whether a decision was made by a panel or out of panel? I can't find anything within the relevant CCG's website so am a bit confused as to what it means exactly :confused:
 

Louise7

Registered User
Mar 25, 2016
1,794
Thanks for looking Nitram, but none the wiser! Trying to understand how a CHC decision could be made without an MDT meeting taking place :confused:
 

nitram

Registered User
Apr 6, 2011
19,936
North Manchester
Bingo!

7.4 Decisions

There is no requirement for CCGs to use a panel as part of their decision making processes. Panels may be used in a selective way to support decision making. For
example this could include panels considering:
 Cases where the individual or his or her representative is disputing the
recommendation of the MDT
 Cases where there is a disagreement between the CCG and the LA over the
recommendation.
The CHC team have delegated authority from the CCG to make eligibility decisions on
their behalf, including cases where a decision can be made without the need to go through
a formal panel process. A decision not to accept the MDT recommendation should never

be made by one person acting unilaterally.
 

Louise7

Registered User
Mar 25, 2016
1,794
Thanks - that's really helpful. The assessor stated that there wasn't going to be an MDT meeting "as that wasn't how she did things". We were then given a different version of the DST to that which had been provided to the CCG. In the section referring to the views of the individual/carer the CCG version stated "Unable to attend DST but all domains discussed with NOK, she has agreed and has fully participated in the assessment process". On the version of the DST that we received this comment was missing. I guess that not holding an MDT meeting then falsifying the DST to state that family had agreed with all the markings and were happy meant that it was less likely to be subject to scrutiny by a panel.
 

Louise7

Registered User
Mar 25, 2016
1,794
Yes, we requested a review but the CCG failed to respond and they kept telling us that they were trying to arrange a meeting but certain individuals were either sick or on leave. Following a complaint we received a response almost a year after requesting the review stating that problems had been caused by failings in how their email boxes were managed :rolleyes: The issue isn't that we think that CHC should have been awarded but that the correct processes were not followed and the DST contains numerous errors which 'down played' the real health position, did not match the content of the hospital records, and subsequently resulted in harm to Mum. We are now more than 2 years on and answers are still not being provided, despite the ongoing risk to other vulnerable people.
 

Palerider

Registered User
Aug 9, 2015
1,440
North West
Yes, we requested a review but the CCG failed to respond and they kept telling us that they were trying to arrange a meeting but certain individuals were either sick or on leave. Following a complaint we received a response almost a year after requesting the review stating that problems had been caused by failings in how their email boxes were managed :rolleyes: The issue isn't that we think that CHC should have been awarded but that the correct processes were not followed and the DST contains numerous errors which 'down played' the real health position, did not match the content of the hospital records, and subsequently resulted in harm to Mum. We are now more than 2 years on and answers are still not being provided, despite the ongoing risk to other vulnerable people.
I think you would be best to allow the IRP to take place and then draw answers from that and decide from there. I don't know your circumstances but getting through these processes first is important because they themselves become evidence if you decide to take matters further, interestingly you have already listed a number of significant failings -I don't know your finaces but I would be reaching for a lawyer as this progresses
 

Recent Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
113,556
Messages
1,662,174
Members
64,660
Latest member
Sarah jane Franklin