The third part of 'MY COMPLAINT REVISED 30th JULY, 2022' is published here with some edit. Again, I have removed the extensive 'rebuttals' section immediately after 'Medical records released via email on 15^th June 2022 Revised 19^th June 2022 to shorten the length of this post. The information removed is already published under blog entries 'A MURDER OF CONSPIRATORS # 2 Access to Records 1' to 'A MURDER OF CONSPIRATORS # 6 Access to Records 4'. I HAVE included 'MEDICAL RECORDS CAMHS BRAMBLYS DRIVE Medical records released via email on 21st June 2022' because it contains new and unpublished information.

It should be noted that some of the responses to my complaints, first by Wanda Reynolds and then by SPFT Patient Advisory Liaison Services investigator, Andy Ashby, were factually inaccurate and or dishonest or disingenuous. The material published here was my best understanding of the issues at the time.

'Medical records The Bridge Centre

Medical records released via email on 15^th June 2022

Rebuttal

Revised 19^th June 2022

...**********...

MEDICAL RECORDS CAMHS BRAMBLYS DRIVE

Medical records released via email on 21^st June 2022

REBUTTALS AND FURTHER COMMENTS

VARIOUS DATES  multiple claims that I have photos of Sally pinned to walls around my house and that I talk to them. Also that I have expectations that Sally will join my family and become a ‘surrogate mum’ to my daughter Meg. Again CATEGORICALLY UNTRUE

JAN 20^TH Email from Sally to Nic at CMHT referrals   Sally states ‘Mark has given veiled ultimatum around collecting the artwork..’ No evidence of ‘veiled ultimatums’ around collecting artwork...’ CATEGORICALLY UNTRUE  I had made myself transparently clear and reiterated as such in my 12 page letter exactly what my intentions were around collecting artwork.

Again claims that I wanted her to join my family and become a surrogate mum. CATEGORICALLY UNTRUE.

JAN 31^ST Email string to Michal Kaliniak at Bridge Centre referrals  Sally states that ‘we are very concerned for his increased risk when he receives the information about an appointment that will be cancelled 3^rd feb...’ I received a ‘therapy closing letter’ dated 30^th  January actually confirming the appointment for the 3d Feb. Clear deception that persisted right up until 2^nd Feb when somebody from Camhs reception called me to inform that Sally could not take any of her appointments for that week due to ‘unforeseen circumstances. The true reason for the cancelled appointment was never revealed to me and I only discovered the truth after I had applied for an Access to Records at both The Bridge Centre and Camhs. Clear deceit. Worth pointing out that it was Michal’s opinion that my reaction to the ‘ perceived abandonment’ would be an ‘appropriate reaction’, meaning that I would be behaving quite normally.

ALSO Clinical note reference telephone conversation with Ian Whaites   Sally says ‘Yes it is possible that any risks to myself will increase on receipt of the letter’.  Absolutely heartbreaking for me to read. I’m distraught at the idea that Sally might have thought she was at risk from me. Sally goes on to say that ‘Mark’s feelings towards me...could be part of the more full assessment ..’ Alluding to the upcoming mental health assessment eventually carried out with Kirsty Henry, planning to elicit response using emotional provocation. Reply from Ian Whaites who questions whether the risk to ( Sally ) would increase after this letter is sent out ... as I could hear the sense of urgency in your voice.’  Completely heartbreaking for me to read as Sally is clearly demonstrating that she is fearful of me. I would rather die than cause her harm or put her at risk.

ALSO Telephone call with Fiona Croombs Sally again makes claims reference Googling Sally, ‘printed photos of me...and the flat on the Old Basing/Mapledurwell border called the Hollies etc ’ All points previously addressed in ‘Medical Records The Bridge Centre rebuttal ’ email .

DUPLICATION OF ‘PROESSIONALS MEETING’ NOTES All points already addressed in ‘Medical Records The Bridge Centre rebuttal’ email.

FEBRUARY 17^TH Clinical note reference Telephone Conversation between Sally and Kirsty Henry of the Bridge Centre. ( I have noticed that this conversation has very few notes attached but that the conversation lasted for almost an hour and a half. I have noticed this throughout both sets of disclosed records that identify lengthy meetings and telephone conversations that result in minimal note taking. What else is being discussed that isn’t being entered into the medical record?) says ‘detailed conversation’  Kirsty’s recommendations were that I have psychological therapies ‘within the CMHT’. What does this actually mean? What psychological therapies were actually available ‘within the CMHT’ and are such therapies separate from the ITalk service? I have been repeatedly informed by various members of the Bridge Centre team, including Sean Dale Malloy, that ‘psychological therapies’ are not available to me directly within the CMHT.’ Also major error highlighted Kirsty says that her Risk assessment of me is HIGH whereas a ‘safeguarding professionals meeting’ had Risk assessed me as LOW. Was Kirsty’s assessment misreported? Kirsty reported that I felt that the ‘safeguarding referral promised by Sally was not made. Sally says it was. FOR CLARIFICATION Sally initially promised me that a ‘safeguarding referral’ was going to be made immediately after my final ‘parent work’ session on 16^th December 2021. When I reminded her of the fact during the final review with herself, Mark Birbeck, my daughter Meg and I on Jan 13^th , she admitted to not having carried out that promise to make a ‘safeguarding referral’. I was very disappointed at hearing the news and Sally made a poor excuse. I think it would have been better for her to admit that she had forgotten. We are all human and sometimes forget to do things. Sally immediately made a ‘safeguarding referral’ following the review on Jan 13^th. This is what I referred to in my assessment with Kirsty Henry.

RECORDS

I have grave concerns around record keeping and record management, particularly at Camhs. The Records Management Code of Practice 2021 outlines the legal obligations and states that all health and care employees are responsible for managing records appropriately. Records must be managed in accordance with the law. Those responsibilities should align with the Public Records Act 1958 and Local Government Act 1972.

Disclosure of my medical records from the Sussex Partnership was severely delayed. Katie Rees of SP Information Governance explained that her department was experiencing significant IT technical difficulties. I have accepted her apologies for this. In retrospect I want to applaud her for her efforts in getting my medical records to me during such difficulties. She was working late into the evenings to make this happen for me.

The General Medical Council are specific and clear in stating that records should be made at the time the events happen, or as soon as possible afterwards. The General Medical Council also clearly state that clinical records should include relevant clinical findings, decisions made and actions agreed, and who is making the decision and agreeing the actions.

First, there was an ‘extensive meeting of leadership staff and clinical leads’ held at Cahms at sometime at the beginning of January 2022 to discuss my 12-page letter to Sally Mungall handed to her on 23^rd December 2021. The outcome of that meeting led to the cancellation of an agreed meeting between Sally and myself scheduled for the 3^rd February 2022. More importantly that decision informed ALL future actions taken against me by Camhs and the Bridge Centre and was foundational to the toxic conspiratorial culture that saw me misrepresented, covertly monitored, emotionally manipulated, wrongly pathologised and potentially criminalised. I have never be privy to the records of that meeting despite the fact that I was central, as a patient, to that meeting and the fact also that reputational and psychological damage done to me as a result of that meeting. I only discovered evidence that such a meeting had taken place after much complaining and the eventual Access to Record request disclosure which referred to it.

I have since asked you, Wanda, for access to the minutes of that meeting.

You have answered my question no 7 above from my original complaint and suggested that ‘the discussions that managers and clinical leads had were at an operational level and not minuted in care records’. Surely this was NOT an operational meeting. Surely this was a meeting to dispute a course of action that was clinical in nature. The decisions that were made during that meeting had a clinical outcome. The decisions made during that meeting had serious repercussions for me as a patient. The decisions made during that meeting have informed ALL subsequent actions against me including shaping and influencing clinical assessments and recommendations made by CRHT and CMHT.

Records of that ‘extensive meeting of managers and clinical leads’ should have been made and lodged at the time or as soon as possible afterwards.

Your answer to my question no 7 states that ‘discussions held at an operational level were not minuted in care records’. Does that mean that they were not minuted in care records or not at all?

I also asked you the following questions, first on the 7^th July 2022 and many times after,

WITH REFERENCE TO THE MINUTES TAKEN IN RELATION TO THE ‘EXTENSIVE MEETING’ OF LEADERSHIP STAFF TO DISCUSS MY 12 PAGE LETTER TO SALLY MUNGALL HELD AT SOME TIME BETWEEN 16^TH Dec 2021 AND 30^TH Jan 2022-07-02

1. Were actual notes, minutes or any other forms of official record-keeping taken at the actual time of the ‘extensive meeting’?

2. Why were said actual notes, minutes or any other forms of official record-keeping not entered into my medical records or ‘onto the system’ at the time and date of the meeting?

3. Would you be able to provide evidence, if asked, to demonstrate that Camhs Bramblys Drive Basingstoke have ‘operate(d) a satisfactory records management regime’ with specific reference to myself and my time as a patient there?

4. Are these actual minutes, currently with Sally for her to check for accuracy, a summary of the administrator’s recollection of the ‘extensive meeting’ ie is the administrator wholly or partially relying on memory or are the actual minutes the unaltered, unedited record taken at the actual time and date of the ‘extensive meeting’? ie is this record characterised as ‘authentic’ meaning that ‘It is what it purports ( claims ) to be. To have been created or sent by the person purported to have created or sent at the time purported.’ ( section 3.2 Designing a records keeping system of the Records Management Code of Practice 2021 ).

5. If the minutes have been recorded in compliance with the Records Management Code of Practice 2021 then what is the rationale for asking Sally to check for accuracy and why at this late stage? Surely the minutes would have been circulated at the time and not several months later when memory is subjectively impaired by time.

6. If Sally questions the veracity of the record will she then expect to arbitrarily alter the record? The Records Management Code of Practice 2021 clearly states that ‘original entry ( into the record ) should not be deleted.

What I’m driving at here is a need to clarify that the minutes to the ‘extensive meeting’ are an accurate record made at the time and date and are not being compiled ad hoc or fabricated on the fly. In accordance with the Records Management Code of Practice 2021, record characteristics of the ‘extensive meeting’ minutes should be ‘AUTHENTIC’ and  ‘RELIABLE’,  and the ‘INTEGRITY’ of those minutes should be evidenced as ‘Complete and unaltered, Protected against unauthorised alteration’ and ‘Alterations after creation can be identified as can the person making the changes’. The records should also be ‘USEABLE’ in compliance with the Records Management Code of Practice 2021.’

These questions reference the ‘Record characteristic’ as defined in the Records Management Code of Practice 2021

...*******...

Second,  I note is the sparsity of notes taken during some meetings. For example there are relatively few notes taken during the ‘Professionals meeting’ which took place under Camhs supervision on 9^th February 2022 and yet the meeting lasted for hours.

Third, does the letter from Kirsty Henry mentioned in Question 15 in Part One actually exist and, if so, why was it not disclosed along with the rest of my medical records following my Access to Records request?

Fourth, the RECORDS RELATED TO SHARING CONCERNS TO THE POLICE.

Where are the records related to sharing concerns to the police? There are multiple references throughout my medical records suggesting that staff contact police to alert them to my perceived risk to staff. The final entry under ‘Professionals Meeting Wednesday 9^th February 2022’ states ‘SM to discuss with senior management re; police involvement. Flagging concerns just in case future call needs to be made to police. Factual evidence we have of concern being shared with police.’ I ABSOLUTELY WANT TO KNOW EVERYTHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED WITH SENIOR MANAGEMENT RE POLICE INVOLVEMENT and what happened if and when FACTUAL EVIDENCE WE HAVE OF CONCERN BEING SHARED WITH POLICE. I was horrified to read these multiple references to contacting police throughout my medical records. It was wholly inappropriate.

All of the above leaves me suspicious that not all records have been made and/or entered into the system at the time that they were made.'

The fourth and final part of 'MY COMPLAINT REVISED 30TH July 2022 will be published in the next instalment of A MURDER OF CONSPIRATORS.