Hi All
Although we are waiting for the IRP and probably either Ombudsman or Legal Action after that (we have no faith in the CHC procedure for a fair hearing).

The PCT have offered 3 weeks payment before Father in Law died (he was in the nursing home for 165+ weeks !) which is an insult really.

However, if we accept this 3 weeks payment from them is this seen as us accepting the offer and the case being closed, or can we fight on for what Father in lAW was legally entitled to?

Hi GF,

I'll refrain from insulting words that spring to mind!

Am remembering that phrase "Without prejudice" .... ....

Could you write letter explaining that you are considering accepting this derisory payment 'without prejudice' and without accepting it as a full and final settlement of your continuing claim for CHC, and if "those who are offering it to you" are prepared to acknowledge the fact that you do not consider your claim to be closed but that you will continue to pursue your claim ... blah blah blah ..... ???

The ball is then thrown into their court .... and they would need to reply to you BEFORE you accept anything.

Just a thought, as to what I might do.

VM

Hello Greenflamingo

Again sounds good what VM said.

Those last three weeks. Was that not just fast track?

In the North Yorkshire case that HJ is handling, we got three months fast track.
But it makes no difference to the main retrospective claim. Its separate.

Just make sure it was for fast track. Possibly could be useful to argue that the time should be realistically extended backwards for further weeks, months, etc. ( for fast track CHC to be given )

Kind regards Ian

Hi GF
My dad was awarded 10 days CHC before he died, he was only given this because he was bed blocking in a hospital bed. I thought when I accepted the funding that I would not stand a chance of a future claim but approx 12 weeks later I was knocking at their door again..

Hi Ian

If it was fast track for the last 3 weeks we knew nothing about it - but that is nothing new with our particular PCT.

I asked for Fast Track 6 months prior to death and was told by the Nurse Assessor that it was only for new patients entering the system.
Which was obviously wrong but I cease to be surprised at the ineptitude.

Hello Greenflamingo

Its not ineptitude on their part its down right deceit and lies.

They seem to come up with something new everytime on saying we cant get fast track.

We were told that you couldnt get fast track in a care home situation. But we didnt take no for an answer and pressed for it via HJ and got it.

Very kind regards Ian

Greenflamingo, Ian,

My mothers GP was told (reprimanded???)that her Fast Track application on my mothers behalf was inappropriate as it was only used for patients who were in the last three months of life ( Do they have a crystal ball???}This conversation was verbal only and NEVER put down in writing, the excuse in writing was it was only to be used for people who needed to be in their prefered place for end of life and a care plan put in place, so as my mother was already in her prefered place there was no need for the fast track??



So you are so right Ian it is just downright deceit and lies. Can you suggest how i answer this excuse?

Hello Shaz1

Just check up on the guidance for fast track either from any of PCTs guidance, or the National Framework.

Seem to recall prefered place and care plan as being part of the FT structure. But the all point of fast track is to ensure that everything is speeded up and funding set up.

There probably is complexity in deciding just what determines a final stage of a terminal state. This is a problem with sufferers from dementia who also have a cancer that is terminal. There could be a few years before the end stage is reached so realistically that cant be considered fast track. But that has nothing to do with the fact that that person should already not be in a position were fast track is necessary, because that person should already have full NHS CHC funding.

In its purest sense I doubt that fast track would extend beyond six months.

Ironically when they do award fast track for a rapidly deteriorating state this in a way is recognition of a medical condition that should have been funded in the first place. You dont get fast track funding for a rapidly deteriorating social care need situation, do you?

Kind regards Ian

ian wrote:
Ironically when they do award fast track for a rapidly deteriorating state this in a way is recognition of a medical condition that should have been funded in the first place. You dont get fast track funding for a rapidly deteriorating social care need situation, do you?

Very good point Ian...for a health need to progress and worsen it must have existed in the first place....it is a bit like "I think therefore I am" or as VM would write "cogito ergo sum" I am afraid RGN assessors are sceptics of a hitherto unknown species, impervious to all attempts at reasonable argument.

Thank you for your thoughts.

kind regards
MG

Thank you Ian for your usual clarity, and yes it is very hard to determine when someone`s end of life is and I accept that my mothers could (or not) be some time off so a fast track could be in appropriate, and as you have said if health needs are present then CHC should have been awarded in the first place.

Ty. x