The ICP’s November and December 2022 reports not acknowledging failings
23. In handling complaints, section three in our Principles of Good Complaint Handling says public bodies should be open and honest when accounting for their decisions. They should give clear, evidence-based explanations, and reasons for their decisions. When things have gone wrong, public bodies should explain fully and say what they will do to put matters right.
24. Section 6.9 of the ICP’s Complaint Policy sets out similar principles about how staff should account for the decisions they reach.
25. We saw the ICP’s staff acted in line with these guidelines on this matter.
26. The ICP’s reports in November and December 2022 addressed questions and concerns Dr G raised about the ICP’s role in managing and monitoring commissioned mental health services in Greater Manchester.
27. In the first of these complaints, Dr G complained the ICP did not commission the correct therapy and services to ensure Mr B could access the right care in a timely manner. He explained Mr B’s only option to get any care swiftly was to seek privately funded therapy. Had Mr B been able to access the correct treatment, Dr G said this may have avoided Mr B’s suicide.
28. In its November 2022 response, the ICP said it recognised, when Mr B needed care, his local services did not have the investment they needed to meet national targets about waiting times to access such therapy. The ICP apologised about this, and the experience Dr G explained Mr B had.
29. The ICP explained action it took to address this issue. It submitted business cases for investment into these services. It explained this investment resulted in improvements in these services, and they were meeting national targets about access to psychological therapies at the time it shared its response. We saw the ICP explained to Dr G what these targets were in its December 2022 response. We also explain these targets in paragraph 40.
30. Considering the above, we saw the ICP was open about its decision concerning the therapy services available to Mr B. It gave Dr G reasons why the services in place did not meet targets about waiting times, and what the ICP was doing to address patient access to these services. This is in line with the guidelines we referred to in paragraph 23 and 24.
31. In Dr G’s second complaint to the ICP, he complained about his own access to mental health therapies. The ICP considered it did not get things wrong in commissioning the services for the complex grief and post-traumatic stress disorder Dr G experienced after Mr B died.
32. Within its investigation, the ICP referred to NICE Guideline 123. It explained, according to this guideline, it needed to commission the step two and step three services this guideline recommends.
33. It explained it commissioned these treatment pathways in partnership with other organisations. It told Dr G which organisations the ICP worked in partnership with to set up these treatment services. This included charitable organisations and Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust.
34. Specific to bereavement, with its partner organisations, the ICP explained it invested in the Greater Manchester Resilience Hub following the Manchester Arena bombing in 2017. We saw this service provides a range of services for people affected by traumatic events, including through referrals to other support services. A key role the hub’s staff have is to assess and coordinate the care of people experiencing bereavement difficulties.
35. The ICP explained it had commissioned a bereavement service ran by one of its partners. This service provides online self-help and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), group-based peer support programmes (with others going through bereavement), and individual CBT.
36. We saw section 1.4 in NICE Guideline 123 recommends such services should be available for patients with the difficulties Dr G experienced. Section 1.5 says commissioners like the ICP have the responsibility to develop such care pathways in their locality with partner organisations.
37. So, we saw the ICP explained the services it considered it should have commissioned according to the guidelines it needed to adhere to. It then cited evidence about the services it commissioned, and explained these were the services NICE Guideline 123 recommended.
38. This means, in accounting for its decision, the ICP gave reasons and evidence why it considered it acted in line with relevant guidelines on the matter Dr G complained about. While we appreciate Dr G disagrees with the ICP’s view on whether it got things wrong, we saw it reached its decision on this in line with the guidelines we cited in paragraph 23 and 24.
39. Regarding monitoring the mental health services the ICP commissions, Dr G complained about this in the complaint the ICP responded to in December 2022.
40. The ICP said it has a responsibility to monitor these services and whether they deliver against national targets. That is, that 95% of patients seeking mental health support get assessed and begin treatment within 18 weeks, and 75% within six weeks. It also said its quality performance team monitor the quality of these services.
41. The ICP did not consider it failed in its responsibility to monitor the services it commissioned. In accounting for its view, the ICP explained a range of things it did to monitor these services, including:
• monthly checking of data from providers of mental health services on whether they are meeting national targets about patient access to treatment • meetings between the ICP’s staff and staff at the providers delivering services to discuss any issues with services, as frequently as each month for its larger providers • its quality team reviewing patient feedback and complaints in each service area to check for recurring issues • mandating all providers to send the ICP’s quality team evidence of patient views and experiences about their service at least twice per year, which the ICP’s quality team review to assess how satisfied patients are with the service • mandating all providers to collect data from patient experience questionnaires which they must share at performance meetings with the ICP’s staff.
42. Through gathering such information, the ICP explained it asks for remedial action plans from providers when their data shows they do not meet national targets. Where patient feedback or complaints consistently identify issues with a particular service area, the ICP will do a review or audit of the service. It will discuss this with the relevant provider, and request it makes remedial action plans if the ICP has concerns about its performance.
43. In Dr G’s case, the ICP explained the service he complained about was meeting the national targets about accessing treatment. It added, while he raised concerns about his care, it was not an area where the ICP were aware of complaints from other patients. That said, it shared his feedback with the provider so it could learn from his experience and improve.
44. Having considered the ICP’s response, we saw it explained what its responsibilities were regarding monitoring the services it commissions. It gave evidence on how it meets these responsibilities and reasons why it considered it did not get things wrong. This means we saw the ICP accounted for its decision on this matter in line with the guidelines we explained in paragraph 23 and 24.
45. We also note section 1.5.1.10 in NICE Guideline 123 says commissioners should work with partner organisations to ensure they have systems in place to measure the outcomes and effectiveness of the treatment pathways it commissions. In accounting for its decision in its complaint handling, the ICP set out the processes it had in place to review these things and what it does if it sees a care pathway is not performing as it expects.
46. We know Dr G has different views to the ICP on whether it manages and monitors the services it commissions well enough. We recognise his views mean he remains concerned about the quality of these services.
47. We hope we have clearly explained why we saw the ICP acted in line with guidelines in reaching its views on this topic, and our explanations assure Dr G we carefully considered how the ICP reached these conclusions.
The ICP’s decision to not withdraw its investigation report dated 21 August 2019
48. Dr G told us the ICP agreed to reinvestigate issues about Mr B’s access to mental health services during the meeting he had with the ICP’s complaints officer on 17 May 2022. He said its report, which the ICP issued in November 2022, upheld his complaints.
49. He added, in the meeting, while staff agreed to reinvestigate, they said the ICP would not withdraw the original findings in its August 2019 report. Despite upholding his complaint when sharing its later investigation, Dr G said the ICP would still not withdraw its original report.
50. He said the position of each investigation opposed each other. He considers the ICP has tainted its findings in its later investigation because it has not withdrawn its original investigation report.
51. In their email to Dr G on 23 May 2022, we saw the ICP’s complaints officer explained the ICP’s position. They acknowledged, even though it was reinvestigating, the ICP would not withdraw its previous response to Dr G’s complaint about Mr B’s access to services. They noted Dr G asked for this to happen when he met with the complaints officer.
52. They added the ICP gave him this response through its complaint process. We then reviewed it in our investigation about Mr B’s access to services and the ICP’s handling of Dr G’s complaint about this, and Dr G exhausted the NHS complaint process. The complaints officer added the ICP accepted our investigation findings, the criticism they contained, and it acted on the recommendations we made about failings in its complaint process.
53. We saw the ICP acted in line with guidelines on this matter in deciding not to withdraw its report from August 2019.
54. Section three in our Principles of Good Complaint Handling say public bodies should:
• create and maintain reliable and useable records as evidence of their activities, which include the evidence considered and the reasons for decisions • ensure records are kept and can be retrieved for as long as there is a statutory duty or business need, which includes the need to provide relevant information to us.
55. The ICP’s response in August 2019 is a record of its activities in investigating Dr G’s original complaint. It explained what evidence the ICP considered and the decisions it then reached about his complaint.
56. Irrespective of the findings, our Principles of Good Complaint Handling say the ICP should have kept a record of its investigation. We needed to look at this as part of our investigation into Dr G’s complaint which we completed in January 2022. Its report also serves as a record of the decision the ICP reached at the time. Therefore, we saw no failing in the ICP deciding not to withdraw its report and maintaining a record of it.
57. We recognise Dr G disagrees with the content of the ICP’s August 2019 report, and its content is a source of distress for him. We also appreciate we were critical about the ICP’s handling of his 2019 complaint in our investigation.
58. Even though we made criticisms of the ICP’s August 2019 report, we hope we have clearly explained why we would not expect the ICP to withdraw the report and that it should maintain a copy of it.
The ICP’s investigation about Dr G accessing mental health services
59. Dr G told us the ICP’s complaints officer agreed what issues they would investigate from his complaint submission about his difficulties accessing mental health services.
60. Dr G complained to us the complaints officer did not ask him for his evidence while agreeing the content of the investigation, and the ICP went on to produce its report without. He added the complaints officer said he would have the chance to review and amend their draft report before they finalised it, but they did not give him this opportunity. For these reasons, Dr G told us the ICP did not properly investigate his complaint.
61. Following careful consideration of the ICP’s complaint handling, we saw it acted in line with guidelines on these matters. From paragraph 62, we explain what we saw regarding the ICP’s consideration of evidence. From paragraph 73, we explain our findings on whether the ICP should have shared a draft version of its investigation report with Dr G.
62. Section 6.6 in the ICP’s Complaint Policy says, in compiling a complaint investigation report, staff should review available documentation and evidence related to the complaint, as necessary to inform their findings.
63. From the evidence both the ICP and Dr G sent us, we saw, when Dr G submitted his complaint to the ICP, he sent staff the following documents he gave titles to:
• Gazette A, B, C, D, F, and G • Gazette A Very Long Journey (AVLJ) • Gazette Harris.
64. Initially, in his 13 September 2022 email making his complaint, Dr G sent the ICP the documents we mentioned in the first two bullet points above. He also said he had more evidence available. However, he would consider what other evidence he might need to send the ICP following an initial discussion with its complaints officer about the complaint and investigation.
65. We saw Dr G had this discussion with the complaints officer on the phone on 27 September. On 30 September, he emailed them to share the information they identified in that discussion. This included Gazette Harris.
66. Collectively, Dr G’s gazettes contain hundreds of documents and pages within them. In summary, the topics within them included:
• Dr G’s accounts about the care he received during the period he complained about • correspondence between him and the different mental health services he tried to access care with • correspondence between him and these services on complaints he made about their service and responses they gave him about this.
67. In his complaint to the ICP, he explained the evidence from his gazettes showed a series of failings in the services the ICP had commissioned. He added the investigations these services did into his complaints upheld them and said they planned to make improvements. Although, he said he was unsure whether the organisations had fully implemented the improvements they mentioned.
68. Following correspondence between Dr G and the ICP after submitting his complaint, we saw he emailed the complaints officer on 4 November to signal his agreement about what issues the ICP would respond to in the complaint. This followed an exchange of emails between Dr G and the complaints officer to agree the issues the investigation would cover following the submission of his complaint.
69. Under each of the four agreed topics in the ICP’s investigation, the ICP’s report cited the gazettes it received from Dr G as the evidential basis in support of his complaints. We did not see explicit reference to specific documents or pieces of correspondence within his gazettes in the ICP’s report. That said, at various points, the report referred to events conveyed within Dr G’s gazettes.
70. For example, under point two and nine in the ICP’s report, it recognised Dr G made complaints to the services he accessed. We saw documentation about this within his gazettes. The ICP noted his complaints highlighted issues with these services, and the providers providing them, which the ICP commissioned. The ICP also noted these providers had apologised to him and taken action to improve their service.
71. We also saw, under point six in the ICP’s report, it noted Dr G could contact the providers he had complained to for further assurance on what they did to implement improvements because of his complaint.
72. Given the references to the content of Dr G’s gazettes, and the ICP listed the gazettes he sent in its report, we consider its staff reviewed the evidence he made available as part of their decision-making process. This followed a discussion he had with the complaints officer about the evidence he had on his complaint. This is in line with the ICP’s Complaint Policy.
73. Regarding the chance for Dr G to review and amend a draft version of the ICP’s report, the ICP’s Complaint Policy does not say staff need to give a complainant this opportunity. Section six of the ICP’s Complaint Policy says, when the investigating officer considers they have established the facts, they should compile a report with their findings.
74. The ICP’s Complaint Policy explains which staff should review the report before issuing a complete version to the complainant. After relevant staff have approved the report, the ICP should send it to the complainant. With the report, the ICP should explain the complainant can raise any outstanding issues they have with the report to the appropriate complaint staff.
75. We saw the ICP followed this process and did not share a draft report for Dr G to review. It gave him contact details for the member of staff he should contact if he had further questions about its report when it shared the approved and completed version. This is in line with the ICP’s Complaint Policy.
76. Following our review of the evidence, we did not see staff promised to share a draft report for Dr G to review.
77. While confirming arrangements to investigate Dr G’s earlier 2022 complaint about Mr B’s access to mental health services, staff sent him the ICP’s Complaint Policy on how it handles complaints. Also in this correspondence, on 11 May 2022, staff explained they formally share findings in response to complaints and the timescales they aim to do so.
78. We appreciate Dr G attended a meeting with the complaints officer on 17 May 2022. We listened to the recording of the meeting. We heard Dr G explained the range of complaints he intended to make. The complaints officer discussed next steps on progressing investigations into his complaints. They discussed procedures associated with investigating, including:
• they would review complaint submissions Dr G sent them • they would then agree which issues from these submissions the ICP would investigate • the complaints officer would then commence investigations • they would send Dr G a letter confirming the investigations and the timescales they envisaged it would take to do them.
79. Neither party discussed Dr G having the chance to review or amend any draft investigation report.
80. Before agreeing the issues the ICP would consider within his earlier 2022 complaint, the complaints officer answered emails Dr G sent them in June 2022. They contained questions about the procedure in which they would handle his complaint.
81. We did not see Dr G asked whether he could review or amend any draft report in these emails. The complaints officer also referred him to the ICP’s Complaint Policy, which they had sent him in May, for further details on the complaint process they would follow.
82. Their email on 23 June said once Dr G confirmed the issues he wanted the ICP to consider, the ICP would formulate a response addressing each issue it agreed to investigate. The response would include the outcome on each issue and any lessons learnt or actions the ICP would take based on the outcome. We saw the rest of Dr G’s correspondence with the complaints officer then focused on the issues they would include in the investigation, which they agreed upon in August.
83. Following a progress update the complaints officer shared with Dr G in September, Dr G emailed them procedural questions on 14 September. Dr G asked whether the complaints officer would flag with him any parts of his complaint they considered were not supported by the evidence they had seen so far. He added this would allow him the opportunity to review and submit further evidence in support of his case.
84. On 16 September, the complaints officer replied. They said, upon reaching their conclusions and drafting their report, if they considered they had gaps in information which meant they could not complete their report, they would contact him. Upon completion of their report, they would submit it for approval (with senior colleagues).
85. Once these colleagues approved the report, the complaints officer explained they would send Dr G the report. They added the ICP would then offer him a chance to respond and discuss the report further. This included raising any queries or points of contention. This would allow the ICP the opportunity to try and resolve them.
86. The complaints officer also acknowledged receipt of Dr G’s other complaint about his own access to mental health services, which he emailed them on 13 September.
87. In the complaints officer’s email to Dr G on 27 September, which followed the telephone discussion they had with him that day about this complaint (which we gave more detail about in paragraph 64 and 65), the complaints officer sent him the ICP’s Complaint Operating Procedure. They did so to aid Dr G’s understanding on the ICP’s complaint handling process.
88. The ICP’s Complaint Operating Procedure is a streamlined version of the ICP’s Complaint Policy. The complaints officer told Dr G the ICP designed it for staff to use to help them follow the correct procedure.
89. Section 8 in the ICP’s Complaint Operating Procedure also reflects it is not the ICP’s process to share a draft version of a report with a complainant. If the complaints officer is satisfied their drafted report addresses the issues in the complaint, they should seek the internal review explained in the ICP’s Complaint Policy. Once approved by senior staff, the ICP finalises the report and sends it to the complainant.
90. The complaints officer’s email to Dr G answered further procedural questions he raised. For example, to address Dr G’s questions about what would be in a report, the complaints officer said it would answer each point the investigation agreed to look into. On each point, if the ICP concluded things went wrong, it would explain any actions it would take to address this.
91. Following further correspondence on the issues Dr G wanted to raise about his own access to mental health services, we saw he and the complaints officer agreed what the ICP would investigate on 4 November.
92. Having reviewed all this correspondence, we cannot see evidence staff promised they would share draft reports with Dr G, or they set expectations about this which were not in line with the ICP’s Complaint Policy.
93. The complaints officer explained if they considered they could reach conclusions with the evidence already available, their next step, pending approval from senior colleagues, was to share a final version of a report explaining these conclusions. They also shared the ICP’s policy about this with Dr G.
94. From the information Dr G sent them on his complaint, we saw the complaints officer felt they could reach conclusions. Therefore, they acted in line with the ICP’s Complaint Policy by sending him a final version of their investigation report after their senior colleagues approved it.
95. We know Dr G was disappointed with the conclusions the ICP reached regarding his access to mental health services. On this basis, we recognise why he wanted to review and amend its report before the ICP made it final.
96. We hope we have clearly explained why staff followed the guidelines they should have on this part of Dr G’s complaint, and this helps assure him we carefully considered his concerns on this matter.
The ICP’s response to the complaint Dr G raised in February 2023
97. Dr G told us the ICP initially said it would not consider the complaint he raised in February 2023. This was because of a lack of capacity and staff in its complaint department to do this. Therefore, the ICP told him to approach us.
98. He said this was a breach of NHS complaint procedures, and the ICP must have a complaint handling service. He said he approached his local councillors. He explained one of these councillors was helpful and got the ICP to agree to respond to his complaint. To his understanding, the ICP then produced a report on this.
99. He told us he asked the ICP to send him the report. He said he received a letter from the ICP confirming it would not send him a copy. This was on the basis the ICP had already sent him one. Dr G told us this was not true. When he contested this with the ICP he said it applied its unacceptable behaviour policies and ceased correspondence with him.
100. We saw staff acted in line with the ICP’s Complaint Policy on this matter. Staff applied the principles within the policy on what they should do to decide whether a complainant is being unreasonably persistent and how to handle them.
101. Section 11 of the ICP’s Complaint Policy lists examples of unreasonable behaviour when staff may consider measures explained within the policy to handle such complainants. These behaviours include a complainant:
• persisting in pursuing a complaint when the complaint procedures have been fully and properly implemented and exhausted • continually raising further issues in relation to their original complaint • continuing to pursue a complaint when we have declined to investigate, or we investigated and upheld the complaint.
102. In the above circumstances, staff can tell the complainant the ICP has already responded and tried to resolve their complaint through the NHS complaint procedure. On this basis, staff can tell them the ICP has nothing more to add and continuing contact on the matter would serve no useful purpose to either party.
103. Staff can also decide to inform the complainant they will read or listen to any further correspondence and add this to their file. However, they will not acknowledge their correspondence or respond.
104. From our review of the evidence, we saw Dr G formally complained to the ICP on 24 February. He set out his complaint in four parts. He asked the ICP to set up a new complaint, assign a reference number to it, and investigate these issues.
105. On 17 March, the ICP confirmed it would not do so. It said it considered the matters he raised were extensions of the original complaint he made (in June 2019), which it responded to through the complaint process. As the ICP said it had already responded to the concerns his February 2023 complaint raised, it considered these matters closed. The ICP also noted he had contacted us about these matters.
106. On this basis, the ICP said it did not intend to respond to Dr G any further regarding his original complaints. It would not respond to any further emails regarding his closed complaints or matters which were extensions of previous complaints the ICP already responded to. It would place any further correspondence from him about this on his file, but it would not respond.
107. We saw evidence to support that staff considered the criteria we explained in paragraph 101 applied, and they could take the actions we described in paragraph 102 and 103.
108. Below, we go through each point Dr G made in his complaint to explain why. In paragraphs nine to 13 of this statement, we gave information about previous complaints he made, which is relevant and important to understanding the ICP’s decision.
109. The first issue Dr G raised in his February 2023 complaint was the ICP would not withdraw its August 2019 investigation report. Because we criticised how the ICP handled and responded to that complaint, he considered the report was corrupt and the ICP should withdraw it.
110. We saw this was a complaint about the ICP’s response to Dr G’s original complaint in 2019. He previously exhausted the complaint process raising concerns about this response. This included him receiving investigation findings from us about the ICP’s report, and the ICP complying with the recommendations we made to put things right on the matter.
111. We also saw, in the meeting Dr G had with the ICP’s complaints officer on 17 May 2022, they confirmed the ICP would not withdraw the report. They followed up on this in writing in their email on 23 May. In paragraph 51 and 52, we gave further details on what the complaints officer said. This included the kind of information we explained in paragraph 110.
112. As this issue related to Dr G’s original complaint, which had completed the ICP’s and our complaint process, we saw no failing in staff considering the criteria in paragraph 101 applied.
113. The second issue Dr G raised in his February 2023 complaint was that the ICP’s original investigation suggested Mr B and his GP failed to access the mental health services Mr B needed. This was because he said the ICP claimed all patients had access to ‘the correct therapy in a timely manner’. He added the ICP showed no regret about its attempt to blame Mr B and his GP about what happened.
114. We saw the ICP’s August 2019 investigation referred to Mr B’s GP’s actions. It said Mr B and his GP were of the view private therapy was Mr B’s only realistic solution. The ICP apologised about delays when Mr B’s GP referred him to the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) service.
115. The ICP went on to explain steps it was taking to improve IAPT service access. This included investing more money into the service and creating a single point of access for it. The ICP explained it hoped this would ensure patients receive ‘the correct therapy and service in a timely manner’. This is the phrase Dr G highlighted in his February 2023 complaint.
116. The third issue Dr G raised in February 2023 was again about the content of the ICP’s response to his original complaint. He said this response sought to dismiss a report from the coroner about Mr B’s death. That is, the coroner’s regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths.
117. The investigation report we issued in January 2022 identified his concerns the ICP did not mention or address this report. We found the ICP should have addressed the coroner’s report as it was a key part of the complaint and evidence Dr G referred to when he made his original complaint. We made recommendations on this matter which the ICP complied with.
118. The fourth issue Dr G raised in February 2023 again highlighted the statement he said the ICP made in its original investigation. That was, the mental health services it commissioned provided ‘the correct therapy in a timely manner’. He said, because the findings in the ICP’s November 2022 report conflicted with this view, he considered the ICP had attempted to ‘cover-up’ service failings.
119. Having considered all the above, we saw all the issues Dr G raised in his February 2023 complaint related to his original complaint from 2019.
120. Therefore, we saw no failing in the ICP’s staff reaching this view too and explaining this to Dr G in their 17 March 2023 email. The ICP’s Complaint Policy allowed staff to then explain they would not respond further about the issues he raised or investigate them. This is an approach we saw staff continued to take in line with the ICP’s Complaint Policy.
121. Dr G attended Manchester City Council’s Health Scrutiny Committee meeting on 24 May 2023. Part of the committee’s role is to consider how local NHS organisations, and their partners deliver health and social care services to improve the health and wellbeing of Manchester residents. These meetings contain a range of stakeholders including local councillors and staff representing the ICP.
122. Dr G shared his experience of the ICP’s complaint handling at the meeting. He told attendees about the ICP not responding to his complaint. We saw the ICP’s staff at the meeting, who were not complaint staff, said they would find out what was happening with his complaint.
123. Dr G also emailed the ICP’s deputy place based lead, who was at the meeting, on 6 June. Dr G said a local councillor told him they would be looking into his complaint. He offered to meet them to clarify the issues in his complaint. Dr G emailed the deputy place based lead again on 16 June. He described the topics in his 24 February complaint in more detail.
124. On 17 July, the deputy place based lead responded to him. Their letter referred to and responded in a similar way to the ICP’s 17 March correspondence. Their letter said the issues Dr G raised were not new complaints. They were extensions of complaints the ICP already considered. He had exhausted the complaint process on these matters, including having sought a review on them from us.
125. As Dr G tried to raise complaints which repeated or were related to his original complaint, we saw the deputy place based lead acted in line with the ICP’s Complaint Policy by confirming it would not respond to these matters further.
126. Moving forward, we saw a seven-month period of Dr G asking the ICP to investigate his complaints and the ICP responding to say it would not. This includes:
• on 24 July, Dr G contesting the deputy place based lead’s response, and adding the ICP was refusing to carry out its duties to investigate complaints, and it could not justify this under its policies • the ICP’s place based lead sending Dr G a similar response on 9 August to that which the deputy place based lead sent him on 17 July • Dr G emailing the ICP on 3 September to provide more detail on why he considered it was not fulfilling its duty to consider his complaint, he added, if the ICP considered it already addressed his concerns, it should share its findings with him to justify its view on this • the ICP’s place based lead emailing him on 8 September to reiterate the ICP would not do a further investigation into the same complaints he previously made, and it would not correspond further with him about these complaints • Dr G emailing the ICP on 12 and 21 September to ask why more senior staff were now responding to him • on 25 September, the ICP’s place based lead writing to him to answer his question about the staff now responding to him and: • reiterating the ICP’s messages about his complaints and explaining the matters he had raised were not new complaints but extensions of complaints he previously made • the ICP had investigated, responded to, and acted where necessary to learn from the matters he raised, and these matters were all closed • the ICP would not respond further on these matters • Dr G responding on 26 September and asking, if, as the place based lead claimed, the ICP already investigated his complaint, to share a copy of the report with him • on 3 October Dr G emailing the ICP’s deputy place based lead to: • explain the responses he received from the place based lead • ask, if the ICP had investigated his complaint as it claimed, could the deputy place based lead send him a copy • repeat the complaint he made in February • on 20 January 2024, Dr G emailing the place based lead to ask why they were withholding investigation reports from him, to ask that they share them, and that we had approached the ICP to try and agree a resolution, which he hoped the ICP would accept • on 21 February, Dr G sending a similar email asking the place based lead to send him the investigation report he said they were withholding.
127. Following the ICP’s 25 September 2023 response, its staff exchanged emails with each other noting Dr G sent further correspondence which they reviewed. As they considered he was repeating the same issues and requests, they decided not to respond to him for the reasons they described in their earlier emails and letters.
128. Having considered all the above, we saw Dr G’s correspondence from the end of July 2023 to February 2024 consisted of him asking the ICP to investigate the issues he raised in February 2023 or extensions of them.
129. As these matters related to his original complaint, we saw no failing in the ICP maintaining the position it explained on 17 March and 17 July 2023. The ICP’s Complaint Policy allows staff to not acknowledge or respond to repetitive correspondence like this. After a period of staff telling Dr G they would not respond and why, they then exercised their discretion not to respond further in line with the policy.
130. We appreciate Dr G told us the ICP produced a report on his complaint it will not share with him. Having considered the documentary evidence, we cannot see this is the case.
131. As we have explained, the evidence we saw consistently shows the ICP explained it would not investigate the complaint he raised in February 2023. We cannot see a report on the complaint in the ICP’s complaint file.
132. We saw the ICP’s deputy place based lead spoke to a local councillor. This councillor approached the ICP based on information they received from Dr G it was refusing to respond to his complaint.
133. In a meeting they had with the councillor on 18 December 2023, the deputy place based lead explained Dr G was repeatedly raising complaints related to his original complaint. This complaint had exhausted the complaint process, including with us. On this basis, there was nothing more the ICP could add. The ICP noted the councillor agreed Dr G should pursue any further steps on his complaint with us.
134. So, we cannot see the councillor got the ICP to agree to provide a response. Rather than providing a response and withholding it, staff exercised the discretion the ICP’s Complaint Policy allowed to not respond to the correspondence Dr G continued to send to try and raise his complaint.
135. We recognise Dr G wanted the ICP to respond further and he is disappointed not to have received a further response. Given he continued to contact the ICP about this we can see how important this was for him.
136. We hope our findings help him to understand what happened, and they assure him the ICP is not withholding a report from him. We hope we have clearly explained why the ICP acted in line with guidelines on this issue, and on the other matters Dr G raised with us. We also hope these explanations help assure Dr G we gave careful consideration to all the concerns he raised with us.