ELDERHOLME NURSING HOME EVICTION STATEMENT COMPARISONS

A) INTRODUCTION

1) My wife Doreen is in a state of low awareness following an emergency brain operation in 1999. I am
appointed as her Deputy by the Court of Protection. You can read Doreen’s Story at
www.scribd.com/doc/230217688/Doreen-s-Story The NHS decided on continuing health care at
Elderholme Nursing Home and Doreen moved there in October 2000. I spend at least six hours per day
with my wife and have been fully involved in caring for her after training by the NHS in hospital, and with
the help in the initial years from Elderholme’s experienced SENs. I probably spent more time in the Home
than any other relative or even member of staff. Elderholme had an excellent reputation and provided a
happy atmosphere for its residents for many years. I acted as secretary for the relatives group between
2001 and 2005 and then was vice chair of another residents and relatives group from 2006 to 2009.During
this time I helped raise or donated over £20k. Not mentioned at all in Elderholme’s statements. My
involvement in my wife’s care created no real problems until a new matron arrived in 2008.

2) I have always attended consultants’ appointments with my wife and would pass on their comments to
nurses at the Home and between us would come up with the best way forward. The new matron resented
my involvement in my wife’s care. She considered that her judgement over ruled the advice from the
specialist services. This was particularly apparent in dealings with the Dietetic and Continence
departments, as described below. In 2009 a male nurse made a complaint to his employers that he felt
victimised by questions I had asked him about my wife’s diet (see NHS Dietetic and Nutrition Service
below). Elderholme’s new matron wanted me to take a step back from my involvement in my wife’s care
and asked my wife’s GP to tell me to restrict that involvement. In order to obtain her aim she asked other
nurses to make complaints to the GP then held a meeting at which she made false statements. She told
my wife’s GP that she had received complaints that I was interfering from various clinicians. Based on
her information he agreed to speak to me and I attended a meeting with the matron and GP. During this
meeting the GP realised that he had been given incorrect information and refused her request. He confirms
that the matron became aggressive towards me.

B) My Complaint to Elderholme and the NMC

1) I made a formal complaint to the nursing home about the matron’s lack of integrity. They refuted my
complaint and suggested that if I didn’t like it I should find somewhere else.I told them that I did not
accept their response. Despite my asking over several months for a satisfactory explanation to the
matron’s behaviour I was given no meaningful help to resolve matters. The CQC, NHS and Social
Services would not help. I asked my wife’s MP to advocate and she made a complaint to the Nursing and
Midwifery Council (NMC). The complaint was not about the standard of care but related to Elderholme’s
lack of integrity. The NMC asked Elderholme if they had any concerns about the matron and they, of
course, said none at all and categorically refuted everything. The NMC declined to take the matter
forward. The matron made a complaint to her employers that she felt victimised by my actions and
Elderholme evicted my wife from her home of eleven years just before Christmas 2011.

2) Afterwards I asked the NHS and Social Services to investigate the circumstances of the eviction and
my wife’s GP made a statement in evidence. Elderholme refused to co-operate other than refuting
everything. In 2014 the NHS and Social Services released independent Investigation Reports which
upheld my complaints. They concluded that, under the contract of care, Elderholme were not allowed to
evict Doreen for something which they perceived I had done as I was not a party to the contract. Whilst
the care plans for my wife reflected her care needs, the daily charts did not reflect that the care had been
consistently managed. The NHS investigations also concluded that Elderholme had failed to deliver the
care package as prescribed by the NHS and from the GPs perspective presented a risk to Doreen’s safety
and had requested the GP to issue a Do Not Attempt Resuscitation authority without my agreement.
Clinical care was compromised and fell below expected standards. The NHS and DASS concluded that
neither party had followed their own policies and guidelines to rectify the failure by Elderholme to meet
expected standards of care. Both apologised and I accepted their apologies and considered the matter
closed. I published the reports on the internet.
1
3) Read the NHS Clinical Investigation Report at www.scribd.com/doc/226717371/NHS-Clinical-Report
and the Final Report at www.scribd.com/doc/226717601/NHS-CCG-Final-Report and the Social Services
Report at www.scribd.com/doc/226717785/DASS-Report-Elderholme-Evict-Doreen-Beddows

C) Elderholme’s Complaint to the NHS CCG and their Evidence

1) In 2015, over twelve months after the Final Report was completed and published, Elderholme disputed
the findings, and asked the NHS to withdraw the Reports claiming that they had not been involved prior to
publication, and I had published them on the internet. This was incorrect. The NHS had written to
Elderholme in 2012 setting out all of my concerns and asking for their comments. They refused to be
involved. In 2013 the NHS visited Elderholme, discussed with them the Clinical Review findings before
they published the Final Report. The NHS asked for their complaint files. They could not produce any
file in any recognised format. They now produced “new evidence”. This was the first time that they had
put anything in writing.

2) They wrote: “The following information will clearly demonstrate that the CCG report was inaccurate,
misleading and by virtue of its premature publication, significant damage has been inflicted improperly to
Elderholme Nursing Home and to our matron manager. Elderholme seeks: withdrawl of the report and an
acknowledgment that damage has been done to the reputation of Elderholme and our matron manager
and suitable recompense for that damage.”

3) They persuaded the NHS-CCG to withdraw the reports under threat of a demand for compensation. I
asked the Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman to decide that the CCG could not retract an
NHS Independent Report well over a year after it was published. Based on Elderholme’s new evidence,
which at the time I had not seen, the Ombudsman had found in favour of the CCG. I asked for a review of
their decision and after another year they said that as new evidence had appeared the CCG could retract.

4) I repeatedly asked the CCG to see this “new evidence” but was told that Elderholme would not agree
to my seeing it. I applied to the CCG under the Freedom of Information Act but they still declined. I
applied to the Commissioner of the FOI office. They inspected all of Elderholme’s correspondence and
the investigation reports and decided that they fell under the Data Protection Act and the CCG had failed
to follow proper procedures in not disclosing the information.The CCG eventually complied with FOI and
sent me Elderholme’s written “evidence”.The Commissioner said that I was free to publish any of this
documentation on the internet or anywhere else as it concerned both me and my wife. This decision took
nearly another year.

5) I do not accept the retraction of Independent Investigation Reports by the CCG. Elderholme wrote:
Regrettably the report published by the CCG is unbalanced, unchecked ,full of inaccuracies, errors of
fact, and opinions on procedure contrary to accepted medical practice and unsupported by guidelines. It
would appear that Elderholme management are completely unaware of NHS procedure and accepted
guidelines. The Final Report brought together the evidence of the Head of the Nutrition and Dietetic
Service, the Head of the Continence Service, the Manager of the CHC department, NHS Merseyside
Clinical Lead, the Clinical Quality Lead from the CSU, CHC Head of Complex Care, and my wife’s GP.
The Final Report was the result of their investigations which they had reached on the basis of NHS
records including CHC Annual Reviews, and Elderholme’s clinical records. They had not relied on my
statement. Their findings were viewed in light of NHS policies including the National Framework for
Continuing Care Commissioning, Care Planning and Case Management, Supporting People with Long
Term Conditions – Commissioning Personalised Care Planning, NHS Record Keeping, Local Authority
Social Services and National Health Service Complaints (England) Regulations 2009, and the Mental
Capacity Act 2005. When they retracted the Final Report the NHS Wirral CCG ignored all of this
expertise and regulation.

2
6) Elderholme’s evidence was no more than statements from the matron and their ceo, that contradicts the
NHS own records. There was no clinical documentation provided to support their statements. In fact much
of it provides evidence of Elderholme’s lack of integrity. For an abbreviated example of the
misinformation provided by Elderholme see:
www.scribd.com/document/377631918/Elderholme-Nursing-Home-Lack-of-Integrity-doc

D) My Evidence

1) The matron accused me of “always writing things down”. I am able to quote dates times and personnel
because I was advised to do so at the start of my wife’s illness. The International Working Party Report on
Vegetative State says “ family members can be very important to the recovery of patients but they also
need information, counselling and emotional support from the clinicians. They should fully involve the
family members in all clinical procedures and staff involved should therefore be experienced and
confident. The family should keep a notebook of all the observations they make including during clinical
care. Staff should also make notes and compare with each other in order to identify areas of difference.
Staff should also be consistent in their care.”(Royal Hospital for Neuro Disability).In addition, I am
appointed as my wife’s Deputy by the Court Of Protection and have to send them a report annually
detailing the people that have been consulted over her care and any changes over the year. I reported
everything to the NHS in 2011 and they wrote to Elderholme asking for their comments. Elderholme did
not put anything in writing until 2015 which possibly explains its inaccuracy.

2) The matron writes “I pride myself on my integrity and honesty and find it shameful that Dr has
suggested I lied to him” . People can make their own judgement from the following comparison of
statements as to who is telling the truth and whether “ the potential damage” to Elderholme’s
reputation emanates from the GP or the home itself. Inaccurate comments by Elderholme are shown in
red.

E) GPs Statement

1) Elderholme issued legal proceedings against my wife’s GP claiming that his statement was incorrect
and incomplete. The matron writes about the GP’s statement: “The letter is provably inaccurate and,
coming from a doctor, potentially damaging to my professional reputation. Mr Beddows has published it
on the internet, spreading the damage and I seek urgent attention to this matter.”

2) When we arrived at Elderholme the matron asked if I would change my wife’s GP from Bebington
Practice to Willaston Practice as it was nearer and they had many patients at the Home. I agreed. He was
not my own GP and I seldom met him because he made morning visits before I arrived. After a male
Nurse had made a complaint about me asking him questions about Doreen’s nursing, the matron asked
other nurses to make complaints to my wife’s GP in an effort to curtail my involvement in my wife’s care.
She told him various unsubstantiated complaints about me. She then called me to a meeting at which the
GP was speaking on behalf of Elderholme when he repeated the matron’s accusations. He repeated to me
what the matron had told him. He was Elderholme’s “witness” at the meeting, not mine. A doctor whom
Elderholme recommended and hardly knows me, is not going to write a statement that is “inaccurate and
misleading”. The matron claims to have witness statements from other staff who will verify her
accusations. She forgets that the other nurses had left the room BEFORE I was called in. When I stated
my explanations to these complaints, Elderholme wrote that I was “accusing” the matron and she
categorically repudiated them all. For the first time since 2009 Elderholme have put in writing their
explanations. Although they persuaded the NHS that everyone else was lying except themselves, the
following comparison of statements proves that the complaint made to the NMC should have been upheld
and the reasons given by Elderholme for the eviction were bogus and not based on fact.

3
F) Elderholme’s “Evidence”: 1st example of dishonesty – The Falsified Eviction Letter

1) A possible reason for Elderholme not wanting me to see the “evidence” was that it contained a doctored
document which showed duplicity on the part of Elderholme. In 2011 they had written a letter of eviction
in which my complaints were described by Elderholme as “accusations against their matron” which she
“categorically refuted.” At the bottom of the letter they had listed that carbon copies had been sent to the
MP, Wirral Social Services, Safeguarding, CQC, the GP, DASS Complaints, the NMC, the NHS-CHC.
and Merseyside Police. The copy now produced in their evidence shows that Elderholme did not send
these people true carbon copies – instead they had added additional paragraphs which were not in the
letter sent to me. This subterfuge could only have been because they did not want me to know what they
written. Both letters can be seen at www.scribd.com/doc/222292287/Elderholme-Eviction-Letter

G) Elderholme’s “Evidence”: 2nd Example of dishonesty - Falsified “ threats of violence”

1) They wrote in the false copy that one of the reasons for evicting my wife was “His threat of violence
to his wife witnessed by our visiting physiotherapist”. The minutes of the Safeguard Meeting with Social
Services shows that the matron told them that I “ had made a comment about a shotgun saying that he
would kill himself and his wife” .It would be very difficult to shoot yourself with a shotgun! There is no
doubt that this false statement influenced Safeguarding into agreeing the eviction without full
investigation. I have never threatened my wife with violence. The physio could not have witnessed me
threatening my wife and I do not believe she used those words. Elderholme’s letter is dated November
2011.I had not met with their physio since October 2010 when visiting the wheelchair centre. If I had
threatened my wife why had the physio not called the security guard who was based in the reception area
and why did she take so long to report the matter to her employers? Elderholme had purposefully misled
those agencies listed above. I was not aware of this accusation until I obtained copies under the Freedom
of Information four years later. This deliberate act of falsifying documentation underlines the lack of
integrity of Elderholme management that must place doubt over all of their “evidence” against me and my
wife. Even more evidence of intentional deceit is apparent from the following statements:

H) 3rd Example of dishonesty – Referral to Safeguarding

1) GP: I was asked by the Home to visit Mrs Beddows and was told that she had been more sleepy than
usual. She was asleep when I visited and her observations gave no cause for concern. A week later I
visited again after Mr Beddows had telephoned me to say that he had not reported that Mrs Beddows was
sleepy but that she could not open her eyes. I visited again and detected an eye infection. I prescribed an
antibiotic and she recovered quite quickly and returned to a normal sleep pattern.

2) Matron: GP is incomplete. He states he was asked to visit Mrs Beddows and he was told that Mr
Beddows said she was more sleepy than usual. GP said she was asleep when he visited and presented no
concerns to him. GP spoke to our nurses and we documented in the communications book GP said
regarding the tiredness “there was no obvious reasons for tiredness and he thought there was a general
deterioration in her condition”. However GP did not think it best to say anything to Len at present.

3) LB: That is not true. The GP told me on 3rd December. On Wednesday 24th November I realised that
Doreen had her eyes closed for several days whilst I was visiting. I asked Nurse A if she could ask night
staff to observe Doe to see if she had changed her sleep - awake pattern and was now lying awake at night
time. The next day I asked Nurse M whether night staff had noticed anything. She replied that they had
not said that they had noticed anything. I said that it was not the sort of thing you noticed unless you were
looking for it ie did she sleep though the night or was she awake all night. On Friday Nurse J told me that
Doe had “a good night’s sleep” which meant that she had not opened her eyes for nearly a week. She had
asked the GP to have a look at Doe “because she was more sleepy than usual”. They did not tell him that
I had said that she had not opened her eyes for a week. The GP took her temperature, tested her blood
levels and pulse. He noticed her urine was thick and sent a sample for testing and left a prescription in
case the test was positive over the weekend.

4
4) Matron: Mr Beddows contacted GP himself a week later and apparently said he had not expressed any
concern regarding her apparent sleepiness but that she could not open her eyes.

5) LB: On Monday 29th November I told Nurse T that she should let the GP know that I thought Doe
could not open her eyes and not that she was more sleepy than usual. That evening Nurse J telephoned me
at home and said that Nurse T had left a message that I should telephone the GP and tell him myself . I
telephoned the GP and left a message. The GP telephoned me back on Friday 3 rd December and later came
in and identified an eye infection. He did tell me that he thought that Doe had deteriorated because he had
been told by staff that Doe was sleeping all the time and not that she could not open her eyes.

6) I had raised a concern with Elderholme staff who caused confusion by not listening and then telling
me to speak to the GP myself. Two weeks after Doe had recovered from her eye infection, Heather Ward
made a referral to Safeguarding that “Deteriorating health has triggered anxiety/distress for this lady’s
husband. Mr Beddows has expressed suicidal thoughts to a care worker that he would harm himself and
thoughts of ending his wife’s life. Relationships between Mr Beddows and staff are strained due to his
demanding nature. They felt that this would be further exacerbated were he to know of this referral.
Category of abuse: Physical potential if Mr Beddows becomes increasingly distressed about his wife’s
condition”. I had never threatened my wife. There was no “strained relationship” with staff . My wife had
fully recovered from the eye problem TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE REFERRAL WAS MADE. I was
never told about this referral and Safeguarding did nothing about it until they used it as a reason for
agreeing to the eviction nearly one year later.

7) Details of my earlier complaint about the matron’s lack of integrity were sent by my wife’s MP to
Social Services. The Complaints Manager told the NHS investigator that he had not placed my complaint
through their complaints system “because Mrs Beddows was an NHS patient. It was passed to the
Inspection Department but there is no record of what they did with it.” The Inspection Department
actually visited Elderholme presumably armed with my complaint. During the visit, on Friday 10 th
December, I had a meeting with the Directors of Elderholme to discuss my complaint. They promised to
speak with the matron which I presume they did, and on the following Monday she made this referral to
Social Services. Following the referral Social Services made no comments about my complaint in their
report. In their report they listed five complaints entered in their log as received by Elderholme from other
relatives. My complaint was NOT listed. Did Social Services stop their investigation when they received
the safeguarding referral from the matron? Under the Local Authority Social Services and National
Health Service Complaints (England) Regulations 2009 the Social Services Complaints Manager was
duty bound to enter the complaint into his system and then liaise with the NHS and decide between them
who would handle the complaint. Elderholme had not entered my complaint in their log and Social
Services did the same. Co-incidence?

I) 4th Example of dishonesty - Vexatious Complainant

1) Another reason stated in their false copy letter, and later given as the reason that they did not initially
co-operate with the NHS investigation, was that I was a vexatious complainant over many years. They
complained about “ the time management have to devote to Mr Beddows’ demands and multiple
complaints”. They enclosed a “timeline” of my correspondence, which included questionnaires and care
plan reviews, and labelled each one as a complaint. They stated that they had “addressed each of the
above matters with the matron and she had categorically refuted them all.” They said that their
management “rejects each and everyone”. Elderholme are an independent provider to the NHS in
respect of my wife and therefore must apply The Local Authority Social Services and National
Health Service Complaints (England) Regulations 2009. Under section 6 Elderholme have a duty to co-
operate with any complaint investigations. They did not do so. These regulations call for complaints to be
acknowledged in writing, files to be opened and letters of resolution sent. After asking Elderholme for
their files, the NHS concluded in their report: “There is no documentation available to highlight any
actions taken to address the complaint and therefore no formal record of complaint investigations in any
recognised format. This could suggest that no action had been taken.” Elderholme’s “categorical”
repudiation was not based on a properly conducted investigation. Although the matron now writes that
5
“Mr Beddows has caused problems at every level for everyone who works at Elderholme from
admission…” her evidence for this lists nine “written complaints” over the first eight years. Of these, five
were in response to questionnaires from Elderholme themselves and referred to shortage of staff.
Questionnaires should not be included in “complaints”. A “timeline” is not an accepted way of recording
complaints and whatever the complaints were, they were not addressed appropriately as required under
the Regulations. They should not have been used as a reason for evicting my wife.

2) A complainant cannot be labelled vexatious, only a specific complaint can be so described. The NHS–
CCG ’s own complaints policy, Appendix C ,warns that “if a complaint is labelled as vexatious from
the start then it will never be anything else. This may get in the way of your ability to understand why the
complainant is so persistent and may only prolong the time it takes to reach a conclusion. This policy will
be used as a last resort and after all reasonable measures have been taken to try and resolve complaints
during the NHS Complaints Procedure”. By the NHS policy, Appendix C, Elderholme cannot claim that
I was vexatious until the complaint process has been followed and the complaint has been answered
properly. Furthermore I cannot be classified as vexatious if the complaints that I have made have been
upheld, which they were in the various independent reports and as shown in the above notes. Elderholme’s
“new evidence” was not based on a properly conducted investigation.

3) In an attempt to discredit me, Elderholme’s “timeline” lists fifteen copies of my correspondence after
the matron arrived, and claim that they are all complaints. Only one of them received a reply and the rest
are no more than copies of some of the letters I had sent to the MP and which the NMC had forwarded to
Elderholme. However Elderholme excluded copy letters in my favour such as the NHS letter dated 11 th
July 2011 which can be seen at www.scribd.com/document/251161043/Documentary-Evidence doc.1 In
the Social Services Inspection Report of February 2011 the matron claimed that they had only five
complaints between August 2008 and February 2011.They list the dates and log numbers 1 to 5. None of
those dates correspond to any of the complaints now detailed in their “timeline”. Why have they not
entered any of my “complaints” in their log? Either the timeline is incorrect or Elderholme gave the Social
Care inspectors incorrect information. The CQC Inspection Report of October 2011 page 18 states: “The
manager showed us records of six written complaints that she has dealt with since taking up post. None of
them were major incidents and all were fully recorded.” Was the manager telling the truth when she told
the CQC Inspector she had only six complaints from everyone at the Home or was she telling the truth
when she told the NHS that I alone had made fifteen written complaints? You can see the full details of
these “complaints” at: www.scribd.com/document/343138119/Elderholme-s-TIMELINE-of-Complaints

J) 5th Example of Dishonesty - Mr Beddows’ Unreasonable Demands

1) In their statements Elderholme’s chief executive officer claims that the care regime Mr Beddows
wanted, but was not clinically necessary was not economical feasible for the standard CHC fee. Care
Needs can be covered by standard fee – not Mr Beddows desire and unreasonable demands. Mr Beddows
was a serial complainer about the delivery of care to his wife and other matters. From the outset Mr
Beddows was a demanding relative whose requirements were beyond what a reasonable person would
consider fair and normal. The tension was purely on behalf of Mr Beddows because he could not get his
own way. Elderholme list these “unreasonable demands” as being He insists carers and registered
nurses are present. (It is in the NHS Review of the care plan)We have no record that Mrs Beddows was
identified as requiring hourly monitoring. (It is in the NHS Review of the care plan)There is no mention in
nursing discharge needs that a qualified nurse is required to supervise transfers or bathing (It is in the
NHS Review of the care plan). The care plan required by Mr Beddows was not approved by a consultant
or external professional. (It was approved and reviewed annually by the NHS Physical and Sensory
Disability Review Officer) It was only because of Mr Beddows’ requirements that the hourly checks were
instituted and to the best of our knowledge this was not introduced until on or around 2007 under the
direction of Mr Beddows. (I could not direct how a care plan was written It was a requirement of
Elderholme’s previous matron following a CSCI (predecessor to CQC) inspection) The only care plan
given to us was by Dr Pinder which we followed . The care plan to which they refer as being given by Dr
Pinder is dated 2000 and is a partial list of needs, not a care plan as to how those needs were to be met.

6
2) In 2006 CSCI (predecessor to CQC) decided that Elderholme’s existing care plans were no longer
acceptable and they had to be completely re written in line with the newly introduced National
Framework for Continuing Health Care. The only care I wanted was that set out in the new care plan
written by Elderholme themselves and agreed with the NHS in their annual clinical review of 2008 and
2009/2010. No more and no less. The care plan was not written “under my direction” as Elderholme
claim, although I did approve it as required under NHS guidelines. Those NHS Annual Reviews by the
NHS Physical and Sensory Disability Review Officer of 2008 confirms that three staff required for
hoisting and bathing which takes one hour due to transfers. Registered Nursing Needs: “Care need are to
be performed by an RN or family member under supervision”. “2/3 staff for turns.Checked hourly for
signs of pain,bypassing and breathing”.The 2010 Report confirms three people still needed for transfer
and bathing and three people required when being transferred from bed to chair or bath trolley. These
were not my “personal desires”, they were NHS instructions. Apart from the matron giving false
information to my wife’s GP, these were the only matters about which I complained when they were not
carried out. The Elderholme CEO shows that he has little knowledge of my wife’s care. His statement is
disproved by NHS records.

K) 6th Example of Dishonesty - Mr Beddows continuing interference in care judgements

1) The false copy letter also gave a reason for the eviction as “his continuing interference in care
judgements made by qualified nurses to the detriment and safety of the resident and the consequential
reflection on the professional integrity of Elderholme. The matron of Elderholme informed my wife’s GP
that she had received complaints from the dietician and continence service that I was interfering in my
wife’s care. She wanted to persuade him to restrict that involvement. The matron of Elderholme had given
false information to my wife’s GP that would be detrimental to her care. The following two examples
illustrate that it was Elderholme themselves who interfered in the clinical judgements of NHS specialist
services:

K a ) Elderholme’s continuing interference in care judgements - The NHS Continence Service

1) My wife has a supra pubic catheter which enters the bladder through a stoma in the tummy.The tube
needs to be extracted and changed every three months. This can be a difficult procedure requiring patience
and experience. I had been shown how to change the catheter by the surgeon who inserted it in 1999. I had
always been present on changes, calming Doreen to prevent muscle spasm which can make the change
painful for her. Elderholme had a lot of staff changes and older experienced SENs were replaced by newly
qualified RGNs who found changing the catheter difficult. Elderholme asked the GP to make a referral for
Doreen’s Urological Consultant, Mr Kutarski ,to review her supra pubic catheter.I went with Doreen to
see him on 13th October 2008. He performed a procedure to deep clean the bladder and recommended to
continue its installation as the best option. Elderholme disagreed and, disregarding his advice, asked the
Continence Service to remove the catheter.The specialist nurse would not do so, as she considered it to be
in my wife’s best interests. In an effort to override the Continence Service Elderholme told my wife’s GP
that I had stopped the specialist nurse from removing the catheter. This was not true as evidenced from
NHS records.

2) GP: HW informed me that the specialist nurse from the Continence Service had complained that she
wanted to remove Mrs Beddows’ supra pubic catheter and that Mr Beddows had stopped her. She also
told me that the nurse wanted to treat a near by wound to keep it moist and Mr Beddows had stopped her.
The Continence Nurse wrote a report to me following her visit which confirms that her treatment plan was
based on Mrs Beddows best interests and not influenced by non co-operation from Mr Beddows. I see
from the PCT letter dated 11th July 2011 that the department also confirm that they made no such
complaints about Mr. Beddows.

7
3) Matron: GP point is inaccurate and misleading. We have no recollection, knowledge or documented
evidence that the continence nurse complained that she wanted to remove Mrs Beddows supra pubic
catheter and that Mr Beddows had stopped her. To the best of my knowledge no comments were made to
this effect by anyone at Elderholme. The wound in question was seen by the tissue viability nurse and a
dressing was prescribed to ensure the wound was kept moist. To the best of our knowledge at no point did
Mr Beddows disagree with this dressing and we never reported that he had. Is GP referring to me when he
says “she also told me”. If so I did not say this to GP.

4) LB: The matron made these comments to the GP in front of me at a meeting on 12 th May 2009.
Furthermore the matron repeated these accusation when she and I met in October 2009 in an attempt to
resolve differences. My contemporaneous notes from that meeting read: “I said could we agree about the
complaint from the continence nurse. She said that the continence nurse had told “us” that she wanted to
take the catheter out and I would not let her. I referred her to the letter to the doctor by the continence
nurse on 26th March, six weeks before the meeting, in which she stated that she had told me that she
wanted to re catheterise Doreen and I agreed. Matron just said “Well she told us different”. A copy of the
minutes of the meeting at which she made this comment were lodged with CQC in 2009. (see Doc 2)

5) Matron: The supra pubic catheter was problematic and Mrs Beddows often bypassed urine. She had
been catheterised urethrally previous to the supra pubic catheter, but this had to be changed as she had
been re-catheterised so often that the uretha was damaged and replaced by a supra pubic catheter. She
was only catheterised because she was incontinent of urine and if it had been any other patient we would
have discussed the problems with the continence nurse and removed the catheter. Catheterisation of a
patient is always as a last resort. In our opinion she did not need to be catheterised as she was passing
urine normally and incontinence pads would have been more appropriate form of care.

6) LB: The matron’s comments about the supra pubic catheter are incorrect in every detail indicating that
she has no knowledge of my wife’s history in this respect. The supra pubic was not fitted because the
uretha was damaged but because neurological control of the muscles in that area was intermittent. NHS
records will confirm that it was fitted in 1999 as part of a continence management programme. The
bladder would not pass urine until absolutely full and would then be discharged in one release which a
pad or normal catheter could not accommodate. The urology consultant prescribed the supra pubic
programme in 1999, and had not caused any real problems until the arrival of the new matron in 2008. Her
opinions differed from those of the urological consultant.

7) Matron: We would appreciate sight of the report which GP says he has from the continence nurse
stating that this catheterisation was in Mrs Beddows best interest. It was Mr. Beddows who wanted her to
remain catheterised. NHS Continence Nurse Report 26th March 2009: I discussed with Mrs (sic)
Beddows performing the re-catheterisation-myself and he was in agreement that this would be in Doreens
best interests (Doc 4)
(for documents see www.scribd.com/document/251161043/Documentary-Evidence Docs 1, 2, 3 and 4)

8) LB: It was not me who wanted the catheter – it was the Consultant and the Continence Service. In the
NHS letter of 11th July 2011, the Head of the Continence Service has confirmed that Elderholme asked
them to remove the catheter because they were having difficulty changing it. Specialist Nurse Jehamneh
visited with a student. Elderholme staff were “too busy” to attend despite having asked for the nurse to
visit. The nurse explained that Elderholme wanted the catheter removing but she did not think that it was
in Doreen’s best interests. Instead she went through every stage of changing the catheter and I wrote out
her explanations to give to staff. She said that removal of the catheter was a last resort and before doing
that she could try botox injections. She was willing to train Elderholme staff. There was an old wound
near the catheter site and she suggested ways of treating it by keeping it moist and she arranged for the
tissue viability nurse to visit.The Head of the Continence Service confirms in the NHS letter dated 11 th
July 2011 that I did not stop them from removing the catheter or from treating the near by wound. He also
confirms that his department made no complaints about me to Elderholme and their nurse welcomed my
involvement.

8
K b ) Elderholme’s continuing interference in care judgements - The NHS Dietetic and Nutrition
Service

1) B: The second example of Elderholme’s interference involved my wife’s diet. Doreen’s fluid inputs,
her supra pubic catheter and her regular enemas were all closely linked and a fine balance need to be
maintained if the correct results were to be achieved. The dietician advised the amount of fluids to be
given which previously had included extra fluid due to the osmosis effect of the enemas.

2) On 2nd March 2009 the assistant matron was showing carer Sue how to set the feed up. She did not
flush the tube prior to starting the feed and after Sue left the room I mentioned this to the nurse. She said
that it wasn’t necessary to flush the tube. I said that as the flush is part of the diet, my wife would not be
getting the correct amount of water. In their letter of 11th July 2011 the NHS confirm that the feeding tube
should be flushed prior to feeding and this flush was part of the fluid input.

3) The day after I had raised this matter, the matron came to our room and said that the dietician had
contacted her to say that Doreen was getting too much fluid input and it would be lowered. I did think that
was coincidental but accepted their decision. The matron told me but she did not mention concerns about
passing too much urine. I said to her that I hope everyone concerned had taken into account my wife’s
constipation problems. A month later, on 2nd April 2009, the dietician visited and was seen by nurse J. I
was not present but the dietician Maria telephoned me at home a week later and told me about the urine
concern and Elderholme’s request for a reduction. I told her that I did know anything about it and would
ask staff. Everyone denied that Elderholme had reported such a concern to the dietician. A male nurse
resented my questions and made a complaint to the matron that he felt victimised by my questioning him.

4) GP: HW, matron of Elderholme, informed me that the dietician had made complaints that Mr Beddows
was interfering in the care of his wife. From the NHS letter dated 11 th July 2011 it is confirmed that
Elderholme informed the Dietetics department that Mrs Beddows was passing too much urine. However I
was not informed of this at all and clearly, if that was the case, then the obvious step have been to record
an accurate fluid balance chart in order to assess it properly.The only chart I have seen at Elderholme
was a fluid chart but no record of outputs or balance. I can confirm that the dietetics department made no
complaints to me regarding Mr Beddows and I see from the PCT letter of 11th July 2011 that they confirm
that none were actually made at all.

5) Matron: DR.M. statement is inaccurate and misleading. GP has stated that we asked the Dieticians
department to visit because “Mrs Beddows was passing too much urine”. In fact the request was made by
an Elderholme RGN because Mr Beddows was continually asking our nursing staff and in particular RGN
JS, who was not her named nurse, how much fluid Mrs Beddows was actually having. This input of fluid is
documented on a fluid input chart and so the daily amount was totalled and given to Mr Beddows at his
request. Even though he had access himself to this information he continually asked the staff how much
fluid she was having.

6) LB: I had not asked any questions before Elderholme requested a reduction of fluids. I was asking
nurses for details of OUTPUTS not inputs and I did not ask such questions until a month AFTER they
had asked for a reduction. No one could tell me anything except male nurse J. who said that he had added
up the inputs and it came to more than the diet sheet called for. Elderholme did not total inputs on their
chart and never entered outputs.

7) Matron: In order to confirm our verbal response to Mr Beddows’ continual questioning,we requested
the dietician to review Mrs Beddows fluid input and clarify in this in writing. In fact the dietician as I
recall reduced the amount of fluid Mrs Beddows received over a 24 hour period and this was not the result
of passing too much urine. I can state that we never had or raised a concern that Mrs Beddows was
passing too much urine.
9
8) LB: Elderholme did NOT ask for a REVIEW, they asked for a REDUCTION. The NHS in their letter
dated 11th July 2011 confirm that on 3rd March 2009,the day after my conversation with the assistant
matron, an RGN from Elderholme telephoned and asked the Dietician to reduce water input because they
were concerned that my wife was passing too much urine. The “Fact” was the input was increased back
to prior levels three months later after problems with the enemas.

9) NHS Head of Nutrition & Dietetic Service, in their letter dated 11 th July 2011:“The records show
that Elderhome’s RGN contacted the Service on 3rd March 2009 concerned about Mrs Beddows’ fluid
intake…. the RGN felt this was too much as there was a high urine output… The RGN was advised… to
monitor detrimental effect on urine output. It is confirmed that the gastrostomy tube needs to be flushed
before and after the feed and this flush is part of the fluid input.It is also confirmed that it is important and
good practice to keep daily fluid balance records and this is requested to be monitored as part of the care
plan. The Service has never made a complaint against Mr Beddows.” This letter can be seen at
www.scribd.com/document/251161043/Documentary-Evidence doc.1
LB: The matron’s statement that Elderholme never had or raised a concern that my wife was passing too
much urine is therefore untrue

10) Matron:As a matter of normal practice GP would not be advised of our request for a dietican to visit.
We contact them directly for all visits. Following a visit the dietician will always document in Mrs
Beddows’ care notes and follow up with a written record of any requests or changes to the care regime. A
copy of this letter would also be sent to GP.

11) LB: Elderholme state that they would not tell the GP if they asked for a diet review. However there is
a diet protocol risk assessment with in the care plan which states that a high risk must be reported to the
GP. Passing too much urine can be is a sign of something much more serious. As they did not advise the
GP they obviously were aware that they were giving incorrect information to the dietician in order to
obtain a reduction and did not have a genuine concern. They were doing this just to prove a point.

12) Matron: Elderholme do not keep fluid balance charts for any patient unless it is required to be
monitored for a specific medical reason. We were only required to document fluid input for Mrs. Beddows
as she is fed via a peg tube. All fluid given is prescribed by a dietician including feed/water and water
given to flush medication down the tube. We therefore document what has been given as prescribed. This
is the reason GP only saw fluid input charts in use for Mrs Beddows. All the above can be confirmed by
qualified nursing staff at Elderholme supported by contemporaneous notes made at the time by the said
staff.

13) LB: This statement is not true. NHS Dietetics Service sent a fax on 4th March 2009 to Elderholme.
They asked the Home to monitor urine output. This request was repeated by the dietician on her follow
up visit 09.04.09. The visiting dietician LR wrote in the professional visitors notes within the care plan on
15th October 2010 “Monitor: accurate fluid balance” In his letter of July 2011 the Head of the Dietetic
Service wrote that it is important and good practice to keep daily fluid balance records as part of the care
plan. Despite all of these instructions from professional clinicians Elderholme admit that they ignored
them. They failed to monitor urine and did not keep accurate fluid balance charts as requested.

14) Elderholme write “We were only required to document fluid input for Mrs. Beddows” but they did not
even do this properly. The diet sheet called for 2800 mls of fluid per day. A sample fluid chart shows that
inputs were sometimes not entered and total input failed to meet the required amount. It also shows that
outputs were not always entered and the chart is not balanced at any time. On 10 May 2010 RGN R. wrote
in the nurses’ communication book that she was concerned that the fluid charts were not being completed.
The following day nurse T said that she had difficulty filling charts in. It could be that fluids were given
and not recorded but if a balanced chart had been kept as requested on three occasions by the Dietician
then missed recordings would have been apparent. Although Matron HW writes that all inputs are
recorded they were not entered on many occasions and listed below are only an example. These are not
exceptional errors, there are numerous other examples.
10
Although the fluid chart was not balanced by staff I added up inputs from charts with following input results:
22 January 2009 NO fluids at all 3 March 2009 NO fluids 15 April 2009 NO fluids 16 April 2009 NO fluids at all
12/05/09 2590 mls 210 short 14/05/09 2480 mls 320 short 16/05/09 2510 mls 290 mls short
17/05/09 2560 mls 240 short 25 July 2009 NO fluids at all 19 October 09 NO fluids 18 April 2010* NO fluids
9 April 2010 NO fluids at all * On 18th April the matron herself did the medication and she did not enter it on the chart
12/05/10 between 0630 and 2115 NO fluids at all. 1500 mls short 17/05/10 between 0640 and 2145 NO fluids at all.
2000mls short

15) Summary: continuing interference in care judgements

The matters described above with the NHS Continence and Dietetic Services illustrate that it was
Elderholme, rather than myself, who continually interfered in care judgements made by qualified
clinicians to the detriment and safety of my wife. Elderholme staff had difficulty changing the catheter
and so tried to have it removed. Elderholme called the dietician and asked them to reduce my wife’s fluid
input because they had concerns that she was passing too much urine. They had no evidence for such a
concern because they did not keep balanced fluid charts. If they just asked for a review they may well
have been told to make an increase. An increase would not have supported their defence. They wanted to
justify not giving my wife enough fluids. If this was just an error that would not be a problem, but to
continually refute having raised such a concern when NHS records show that they did, proves that
Elderholme’s CEO is correct when he wrote that the NHS Reports have a “ consequential reflection on
the professional integrity of Elderholme”.

16) Elderholme gave false information to the GP and if the matron had been successful in persuading
the GP to overrule the Continence Service then it would have been detrimental to my wife’s care. By
giving the NHS Nutrition and Dietetic Service incorrect information and not monitoring output,
Elderholme failed to ensure that the proper diet was maintained thus presenting a risk to my wife’s health
and safety.

L: 7th Example of dishonesty - Male Nurse’s Complaint

1) In their letter of eviction Elderholme wrote that the matron had made a complaint that she was “feeling
upset, harassed, victimised and stressed as a result of your actions” (the complaint to the NMC).They
went on: “ it should be noted that the company received another formal complaint about your conduct
from another nurse in 2009.That complaint was upheld”. The complaint had NOT been upheld.

2) At the meeting of 12th May 2009 with myself, my wife’s GP and the matron, after she had told him
about everything else, she told the GP that she had a written complaint from RGN J that I had victimised
him by questioning him. I explained that I had not treated him any different from any other nurse. When I
found out what had been said about a urine problem a month later, from the dietician herself, I asked
nurses for information and no one appeared to know anything about it. The male nurse spoke to me
inappropriately and I replied in the same vein. Nurse John made a written complaint to the matron that he
felt victimised by my questions and the way I spoke to him. We differ over what was said but I did not
treat him any different from any other nurse because I asked them all for information about the urine
concern that had been reported to the dietician. There were no notes of a urine problem in the care plan
evaluations. Even so, as soon as I was made aware of his complaint at the meeting with the GP on 12 th
May 2009, I asked him if he wanted to discuss his complaint. He said that he did not want to talk about it.
I apologised if I had upset him. We agreed to differ over what was said I and I shook hands with him. I
gave an explanation to the matron in writing and she replied that they had drawn a line in the sand. In the
eviction letter it says that this complaint by the nurse was upheld. It wasn’t. The GP said that he now
understood where all this was coming from and he called an end to the meeting.

M) 8th Example of dishonesty – not open and honest about Reason for Elderholme Meeting with my
wife’s GP 12th May 2009
1) LB: On 7th May 2009 matron H.W. came to our room and said that Dr Meyer wants to see me about
my wife’s diet to “allay my fears”. I said that I could call in at his surgery on my way home. She said “no,
no, he is coming in anyway on 12 th May.” I now know that the male nurse had made a complaint that I had
victimised him by asking questions about my wife’s diet. The matron did not tell me about the complaint
or ask for my version.
11
2) GP : I can confirm HW arranged a meeting with me and Len Beddows (deputy matron was also
present) to discuss Doreen Beddows’ care and it was only during the meeting that I realised that Len
Beddows had been given no prior warning of the meeting but that it had simply been arranged with me at
a time when Len was likely to be visiting his wife.

3) Matron: GP is inaccurate and misleading. GP was asked to attend a meeting at Elderholme by myself
to discuss the care of Doreen Beddows and issues we, as her carers, were experiencing with Mr Beddows.
As discussed throughout Mr Beddows has caused problems at every level for everyone who works at
Elderholme and other visiting health professionals from admission to discharge of his wife. Mr Beddows
was asked to the nurses’ office and of course was not previously aware of the nature of the conversation
that followed.

4) LB: The GP had not asked to see me about my wife’s diet. The matron writes about the reason for the
meeting: “My job is to protect my staff and that is what I was doing.” Why was the matron not open and
honest with me as required under the NMC code of conduct?

N) 9th Example of dishonesty – requesting staff to make complaints

1) LB: On receipt of the male nurse’s complaint the matron decided to ask my wife’s GP to restrict my
involvement in my wife’s care which she and some less experienced nurses who lacked confidence and
experience in looking after my wife, objected to. She then asked these other nurses to make complaints
about me to the GP, in order to enhance the complaint from John. Nurse L. told me that the matron had
asked her to complain and she had refused. The matron attempted to persuade the GP to restrict my
involvement and in order to do this she told the GP that she had received complaints about me interfering
from her staff and visiting professionals.

2) Matron: GP arrived at Elderholme and sat in the nurse’s office and the 4 qualified nurses on duty, who
have all worked at Elderholme for many years (three of them were newly trained) each expressed their
views and concerns to myself as Matron that they no longer wanted to be involved in the direct care of
Mrs Beddows. They felt threatened, intimidated, harassed and constantly under pressure and scrutiny
from Mr Beddows.

3) LB: I had little interaction with nurses. In the last twelve months I spoke with the matron three times,
each at her instigation. My wife would be in her chair when I arrived and I would not see a nurse until
they brought the medication around five. More often than not I would give the medication through the peg
and I would set the feed up myself. Peg tube changes every three months would generally be by the feed
suppliers nurse and during the last year most catheter changes were made by the Continence Service
specialist. These changes would only be every three months anyway. My main interaction was with the
care staff and not one of them complained. The four in question did not just happen to be on duty, they had
been prepared by the matron to speak to the GP. The male nurse who made the written complaint, the
assistant matron who had not flushed the feeding tube, the nurse who I had reported to the abuse nurse for
shouting at another CHC patient (the matron had told her that I had reported her) and the abuse nurse
herself who had failed to file a report on the matter. From a staff of nearly 100 they were the only ones to
complain and can hardly be said to have just happened to be on duty when the GP arrived.

4) Matron: My job as Matron is to protect my staff and ensure their concerns are listened to and acted
upon. I felt that Len Beddows would respect the voices of reason GP would represent and hopefully take a
step back from his position and leave care of his wife to her extremely professional and knowledgeable
nurses. Obviously we respect he needs to be kept informed but what he was always demanding in the way
of reporting/documentation/being present for catheter changes etc. was quite unnecessary.GP carefully
listened to my staff and agreed that his obsessive behaviour was unreasonable and agreed to address this
with Mr Beddows together with the nurses on duty and myself. GP was supposed to and had agreed to
support staff to continue to provide an exemplary level of care but also to allay Mr Beddows’ concerns
and allow staff to get on with their job unhindered by the pressure laid to bare by Mr Beddows.

12
O) 10th Example of dishonesty – Permission to contact GP

1) GP Statement: HW informed me that Mr Beddows had instructed her that his permission was
required before they could contact me and that Mr Beddows insisted on being present on my visits. I can
confirm that I was unaware of this over the preceding months as Len Beddows was rarely present on my
visits. Mr Beddows tells me that he gave no such instruction and based on my experience of our
association in the past concerning Mrs Beddows’ care I have no reason to doubt him.

2) Matron: GP is inaccurate and misleading. I never made the statement to GP that Mr Beddows’
permission was required before staff could contact the GP.

3) LB: At the meeting on 12th May 2009 with the GP, the matron, the assistant matron and myself, the
matron said that she had received complaints from clinical personnel who had all expressed concerns that
I was preventing them from nursing my wife as they saw fit. The GP said that the matron and nurses had
met him prior to my arrival. He asked if I was too closely involved and he informed me that the matron
had told him that I had given instructions that staff could not contact him without my permission. When he
said that, the matron or assistant matron did not dispute what he said I told him that was just not true. He
said he was pleased to hear that. I have never given any such instructions. The matron writes that “I
never made that statement”. Both myself and the GP confirm that she did. It was the reason the GP
agreed to the meeting.

P) 11th Example of Dishonesty - Clinicians’ Complaints

1) LB: I said to the GP that I had been told that he wanted to see me about my wife’s diet. The GP looked
quizzically at the matron and said that the nurses had told him that the dietician had made complaints that
I had interfered.

2) Matron: The many specialist nurses that visited Mrs Beddows often made verbal complaints to
Elderholme staff about Mr Beddows’ behaviour/demands etc. They appear to be unwilling to confirm this
however all the above response can be confirmed by three or more RGNs from Elderholme.

3) LB: Between May 2006 and December 2011 there were 115 visits by external clinicians and I was
present on only 29 of those. Those twenty nine visits at which I was present were made by only eleven
different clinicians. As so few clinicians are involved, and I have their names and the Elderholme staff
present, and the dates, if there had been complaints about me, it would be an easy matter for Elderholme’s
“three or more RGNs” to be specific about who complained and what about. The NHS Head of the
Dietetic Service and the Head of the Continence Service, the GP and the NHS CHC Manager have
since confirmed in writing that none of their staff had made any complaints about me. See NHS
letter 11th July 2011. The documents 2,3 and 4 referred to can be seen at
www.scribd.com/document/251161043/Documentary-Evidence

Q) 12th Example of dishonesty – Clinicians’ Visits

1) Matron: I can confirm that long before I started at Elderholme Mr Beddows instructed staff that he
wished to be present when any visiting health professional was treating his wife, including his GP. To the
best of our knowledge Mr Beddows never told anyone that we could not call the GP without his
permission, only that he wanted to be here when the GP visited. I did not originate this regime, it was in
place before I started at Elderholme.Prior to my appointment as Matron in August 2008,Mr Beddows had
verbally requested to be present for all interventions and visits by other health professionals regarding
Mrs Beddows’ care. This included supra pubic catheter change, peg tube change, (both of which are
changed at least 12 weekly) G.P. Dietician and Tissue Viability Nurse, Continence Nurse etc.

2) LB: I have never requested to be present for all interventions and visiting professionals. I visited the
Home every afternoon between one thirty and eight o’clock so if a visit was made during that time I would
obviously be present. Most visits were made in the morning when I wasn’t there. For example I have
13
never seen a Tissue Viability nurse. Of thirty visits made by the GP I was present twice. The GP confirms
in his statement that I was seldom present when he visited. The dietician would often visit without an
appointment. Between May 2006 and December 2011 there were 115 visits by external clinicians and I
was present on only 29 of those.The GP has confirmed that I was seldom present when he visited.

3) I was trained in hospital how to change my wife’s supra pubic catheter and her peg feeding tube with
the intention of nursing her at home. The NHS decided on nursing home care and before the transfer to
Elderholme was made, I asked the matron if I could be involved in my wife’s care and she welcomed it as
part of Elderholme’s holistic approach to care. If I was there when tubes were changed I would act as
“dirty nurse”. When there was a problem for staff to replace the tubes and a visit to hospital was
necessary I would get a phone call at home asking me to accompany my wife to save staff going. This
happened twice on a Christmas Day and also at Easter. In the end it was agreed that staff would change
tubes when I was present, then if a hospital visit became necessary I would be available. Some new less
experienced staff found it difficult to change the catheter.

4) Matron: He was always informed of visits but sometimes would turn up late and they had been and
gone. Sometimes he was unable to visit as it interfered with his golf and Everton football matches. He
wanted no decisions made about his wife’s care without his knowledge or input. On at least one occasion,
witnessed by two qualified nurses, Mr Beddows actually cried because he had arrived too late to witness a
catheter change performed by the said nurses. These facts can be verified by all qualified staff at
Elderholme in writing.

5) LB: The Head of Continence confirms that Elderholme asked them to remove the catheter because they
were having problems changing it. The continence nurse visited along with a student, with the intention
of showing staff how to make the change. However Elderholme were short of staff and there was no one
to attend so I saw her on my own. She said that she would return to train staff. The NHS confirm that the
specialist nurse made no complaint about my being present and on two occasions had contacted me direct
to arrange a mutual time for service visits to take place.

6) One such visit was arranged for Thursday 13th August 2009. Jenny the continence nurse had arranged to
visit at one and I arrived at twelve thirty just as she was finishing. She told me that she had telephoned
the Home at about eleven and told them that she would be arriving earlier than arranged and would they
let me know about the change of plan. No one called me to let me know. Apparently she had great
difficulty both getting the old one out – which was badly blocked up with sediment which she described as
like grit – and getting the new one in which took fifteen minutes. Nurse T was in with her and Jenny
explained that the change had been quite traumatic for my wife and she had passed quite a bit of blood. I
hoped that one of them paid attention to calming Doe. I was not “actually crying” as the matron claims
but I was upset to think that I was not there for my wife. T later came in and apologised for not ringing me
– she blamed the receptionist for not passing the message on but then said that she had not thought that
she would arrive on time because she was always late. I asked T if she had given Doe cocodamol prior to
the procedure and she said no, she would give her some now. A bit late! Whilst T could “witness” my
crying, there was only her and the specialist nurse present so the matron could not have “written
statements from all Elderholme qualified staff” as she claims.

R) Care Plan failing – Always providing three staff for transfers

1) GP: HW informed me that Mr Beddows had been insisting on three staff to transfer his wife. I have
seen the original nursing needs letter from Wirral Neuro-rehabilitation which specifies that three people
were needed to transfer Mrs Beddows when she as discharged to Elderholme.

2) Matron: GP is inaccurate and misleading. Mrs.Beddows has since admission to Elderholme in 2000
has had 3 staff to transfer her as instructed by Wirral Neuro Rehabilitation Centre. At no point did I
“complain” to Dr. about this. Mr Beddows used to have 3 staff transfer Doreen from her bed to

14
wheelchair. The bedroom was quite small and with 3 staff, the oxford hoist, Doreen, her wheelchair,
bedroom furniture, an armchair and Mr Beddows standing watching staff there was not much room. We
requested that while he was with his wife he could in fact be the 3 rd person required just to support her
head during transfers. This freed up a member of staff and made more space to manoeuvre. At all other
times when he was not present Doreen was transferred with no less that three staff. There is an exception
to this rule when Mr Beddows himself was quite happy to move his wife on his own with only one member
of staff and nobody to support her head. This transfer with only two and endorsed and acted out by Mr
Beddows goes against the written care plan which he was so keen for us to follow in all other aspects of
her care.

3) LB: The original Nursing Needs letter from the NHS in October 2000 called for three staff to assist
with transfers by hoist. The care plan was rewritten in 2006 still including the three staff requirement as
per Plan 2. It is confirmed in all NHS Annual Review Reports since that time. Doreen cannot control her
head movement and there is a danger that she might collide with the hoist whilst being lifted. An accident
had occurred whilst in hospital.

4) Before admission the NHS agreed an additional payment to Elderholme to compensate for the extra
staff requirement. However on numerous occasions there was insufficient staff available to meet this need.
This had been brought to the attention of Elderholme management on many occasions. On 18 th February
2008 I wrote to the matron detailing 16 occasions when only two staff had hoisted Doreen. Despite this
assurance Elderholme continued to hoist Doreen with only two staff on many occasions. The daily care
charts show when only two staff were available instead of the three called for in the care plan.

5) 2008 January 2nd 6pm, 13th 2pm and 6pm, 21st 2pm and 6pm, 24th 6pm, 27th 9am and 6pm, 28th 2pm, 30th
2pm,3 1st 2pm
2009 February 4th 2pm and 6pm, 14th 6pm, 15th 2pm, 17th 9am, 21st 2pm, 24th 9am
2010 February 3rd,10th,18th24th,26th27th and March 2 and 15 occasions in June and up to 5th July 2010
I was present to help only at 6pm times. Earlier times there are only two signatures on the care sheet, so it
is plainly evident that Elderholme did NOT always provide three staff when I was not there.

6) On 4th March 2008 Elderholme wrote admitting that the Home was operating below a desired level of
staff due to staff sickness. On 6 th March 2008 I replied to the Elderholme letter of 4 th March to confirm
that I had helped with transfer of Doreen by hoist when no one else was available and wrote that “giving
my permission to expedite care in no way condones a policy of not providing sufficient staff”. On 7th
March 2008 Elderholme wrote acknowledging my letter of 6 th March stating that my observations will be
acted upon. Therefore HW’s comment about me being “quite happy” is plainly wrong.

7) HW did complain to Dr. on 12th May 2009 in front of me, when she was trying to persuade him to
restrict my involvement in my wife’s care. (see Point 8).Her words were “He insists on three (staff) and
his wife checked every hour and marked on charts. She receives more care than the other 59 put together.
She would not receive such attention if she was in intensive care”. There was a risk assessment within the
care plan that called for three staff. At a meeting with the matron in March 2009 I pointed out that in the
previous ten weeks there had been 29 occasions when I was not present when there were not three people
available (evidenced by signatures on care report), she had said to me “You don’t need three people – she
gets more attention than anyone else.”. I replied that if she felt three were not necessary could she do a
new risk assessment and if she was quite happy that there would be no risk to my wife hitting her head on
the hoist, then the care plan could be altered.

8) Furthermore Elderholme complained to the NHS about three staff as illustrated in this statement from
the NHS Review Nurse:“Whilst I worked at NHS Wirral as the Physical & Sensory Disability Reviewing
Officer, part of my role was to review patients in receipt of Continuing Healthcare Funding who were
resident in care homes with Nursing. In April 2010 I visited Elderholme to review Mrs Beddows as routine
for an annual review, after reviewing the care plan I discussed Mrs Beddows care with one of the staff
nurses, she told me that they needed more funds to carry out the care that Mrs Beddows required and that
if 3 staff were needed to carry out the care, they should receive an increase in what the NHS were paying”
15
S ) Care Plan Failing - Checks to be made hourly
1) GP: HW complained to me that Mr Beddows was insisting on his wife being checked every hour. Mr
Beddows said that it was in the care plan but was not always done. I was invited to a meeting arranged
between the CHC Team, Elderholme and Mr Beddows called to discuss hourly checking which had been
stopped by the Home. I could not attend but I was sent a copy of the minute. On page three, paragraph 8
HW says “Will always check hourly” and in paragraph 10 Pauline Hurst (NHS) says “can evaluations be
done showing what care has been delivered. On page 4 paragraph 5 HW states “will do what has been
agreed.”

2) Matron: GP is incomplete, inaccurate and therefore misleading. I spoke to GP about Mr Beddows’

insistence that hourly checks be carried out. The GP did not attend the meeting organised by the PCT
CHC to discuss why hourly checks had been discontinued. The hourly checks were commenced by the
previous Matron Christine Whiteside and Mr Beddows. He wanted to know who had checked Doreen
while he was not with her and what had happened. We are quite within our rights to change the care plan
to reflect the care she required. It says in the minutes that I said “will always check hourly”. It does not
say we will document the checks as Mr Beddows required. I said “will do what has been agreed”. Daily
documented care records had been kept in line with CQC regulations since admission stating what care
had been delivered to Mrs Beddows. They are available for everybody to view including Mr.Beddows on a
daily basis. Unfortunately they do not give a blow by blow account of 24 hours of care which is what he
wanted. Elderholme say that checks were made as staff passed the door but they were not recorded.

3) LB: All I ever wanted and asked for was the care described in the care plan and agreed with the NHS
during their Annual Reviews. My wife’s care plan number 7, called for her to be checked for safety, signs
of distress and comfort. The care plan also called for repositioning every three hours with 3 or 4 carers
and a repositioning chart to be monitored by trained staff (nurse). Following a care plan review in 2008 it
was apparent that Doreen was often not repositioned between 2am and 10 am. Although a reposition was
due at 6am this was often missed. That meant she had been left for up to eight or nine hours without being
turned or checked for safety and comfort.

4) Chris Whiteside’s, the matron at the time, solution was to specify in the care plan that checks be made
hourly and recorded, then if repositioning had been overlooked it would be apparent on the checks. The
same as was being done for other residents who could not communicate. See doc 6 extract at
www.scribd.com/document/251161043/Documentary-Evidence from the matron’s confirming letter which
is evidence that hourly checks and recording of same was entered on the formal care plan and was not
because of a “special agreement” between me and Chris Whiteside, as Elderholme claim.This change is
recorded in the NHS Annual Reviews.

5) Matron: During the meeting GP was invited to with the PCT and CHC and Social Services no one
could give me a valid reason why these documented checks had to recommence and why they were
required in the first place.If at any point during her stay GP, Dr.P. (consultant) or the CHC team had
given a valid reason why hourly documented checks were needed, we would have of course completed
them.From admission until some time in 2007 hourly documented checks were not carried out and Mr
Beddows regularly reviewed her care plans with our qualified staff.

6) LB: The NHS Annual Review Reports for 2008/9 and 2010 taken from the care plan detail the valid
reasons: “ Check hourly to assess for pain, bypassing and correct head positioning, check skin integrity ”.
During their annual review CHC copied the care plan and agreed it with Elderholme, in 2008, 2009 and
2010. The Clinical Lead of NHS Merseyside, Lorraine Norfolk, in her Clinical Review, confirmed the
requirement from the NHS’ own records. The matron only had to read the care plan for an
explanation as to why the checks were required. The matron is therefore incorrect when she states that
no one could give her a valid reason for checks. It is evident that the need for hourly checks had been
explained to the matron on several occasions. She just did not follow that advice.

16
7) Elderholme now claim that as the original Nursing Needs letter from the NHS in 2000 does not
mention checking every hour, then such checking was not in the “formal” care plan. That letter is a
statement of needs and not how those needs would be met. The letter referred to occasional problems with
breathing. Elderholme planned to meet the breathing concerns by checking hourly and this is confirmed in
the letter from Mr Woods, Director of Elderholme, who writes that “when Doreen arrived hourly checks
with full documentation were required.”
See letter Doc 5 www.scribd.com/document/251161043/Documentary-Evidence The 2000 Nursing Needs
letter is irrelevant anyway because in 2006 all previous care plans were cancelled when the NHS
introduced the National Framework for Continuing Health Care Commissioning, Care Planning and
Case Management. That year CSCI inspected the Home and reported that existing care plans were either
non existent or insufficient to meet the National Framework standards. Every resident’s care plan was
rewritten in great detail.

8) Final evidence of the necessity for such checks is illustrated by the fact that after Doreen was moved to
a new Home the NHS did a detailed review of her needs and hourly recorded checks were called for in
the new care plan. Her new Home is part of a group of over 400 nursing homes. All patients are checked
hourly whilst in bed and those with side rails such as the ones Elderholme installed on Doreen’s bed are
checked every fifteen minutes. It is evidently a best practice that Elderholme should never have stopped.

T) 13th Example of dishonesty – Checking four times per 24 hours

1) GP: I have seen the letter from Elderholme written sometime after the meeting in which they suggest
that checking Mrs Beddows when giving her medication four times per 24 hrs. is considered regular
enough. In my opinion a patient in Mrs. Beddows’ condition in a bed with detachable side rails is at risk
and checking four times per 24 hrs. is insufficient. In March 2011 I saw severe bruising to Mrs.
Beddows’ foot which was unexplained by staff but was consistent with having been trapped in the side
rails of the bed.

2) Matron: GP states that he has seen a letter from Elderholme which suggests we considered 4 checks in
a 24 hour period is sufficient. Never has this suggestion been made and is refuted by all qualified staff. We
find what GP has written baffling and totally untrue. May we see the letter that we have purportedly
written.
LB: Elderholme’s letter is dated 23rd December 2010, so the matron’s statement is incorrect. See letter at
www.scribd.com/document/251161043/Documentary-Evidence doc 5

3) Matron: GP states that in March 2011 “I saw sever bruising to Mrs Beddows’ foot which was
unexplained by staff, but was consistent with having been trapped in the side rails of the bed”. This is
actually untrue. GP did not visit Mrs Beddows in March 2011.Mrs Beddows’ big toe was found to be
bruised, and swollen but not red to touch on Friday 25th March 2011. Mrs. Beddows had been on a home
visit with her husband on Thursday 24th March 2011.The bruising was not thought severe or worrying
enough to warrant a visit by GP. It was documented in her care notes and RGN communication book. On
Tuesday 29th March 2011 Mr Beddows requested Carol to review her foot. Carol Pears,our
Physiotherapist, wrote that Mr Beddows said “according to him the bruising was less than Thursday”. We
did not know about the bruising until Friday. Did Mr Beddows know about the damage to toe on Thursday
and not tell us? A referral was requested by the physio to GP to see the orthoptist to review foot splints
and specialist shoes to protect her feet. This suggests that the shoes were required for her home visit to
protect them from damage and not from damage by entrapment in bed rails. All our bed rails are
protected by sponge bed rail bumpers to prevent the very damage GP suggested causing the bruising.

4) GP did not visit Elderholme until 8 th April 2011 regarding ***** .He made no note of the “severe
bruising” in his records or mentioned it to staff at the time. Can GP clarify if he actually saw the “severe
bruising” or discussed it with staff on the 8th April 2011.

5) LB: The matron says the GP did not visit until 8 th April so he could not have seen it. I have a
photograph which I took some two weeks later, on 7 th April which shows that the bruising was still
17
apparent and so could have been seen by the GP the following day. So his statement is not “actually
untrue”as claimed by the matron. I have a list of over twenty unexplained cuts and bruises sustained by
my wife since 2008.If hourly checks had been carried out as called for in the care plan, some of these may
have been avoided or at least had an explanation See list and photos at
www.scribd.com/document/251161043/Documentary-Evidence Doc 9 and 11 The matron infers that the
bruising could have happened the day before when I made a home visit on Thursday 24 th March. When we
returned that evening carers Toni, Kelly and Sarah helped me put Doe back to bed so one of us would
have notice sever bruising had it occurred at that time. It was not reported until the Friday afternoon .

U) 14th Example of Dishonesty – Destroying original care plan record

1) Care Plan Seven called for safety checks to be made and recorded hourly. Elderholme decided to stop
these checks as they considered checking when medication was given four times per 24 hours was regular
enough. The page in the care plan which called for hourly recorded checks to be made was removed and
destroyed and replaced by a page which did not mention this requirement. There was no mention in the
care plan of the need for the alteration, who made it and why it was made.My complaint was not whether
hourly checks were needed or not. My complaint was that Elderholme had altered the care plan without
following the correct procedures and this was a further example of the Home placing their opinions and
desires over those of the patient.

2) The matron writes: We are quite within our rights to change the care plan to reflect the care she
required. Even if this were true, when making a change Elderholme are required to follow National
Minimum Standards, incorporated in the NHS’ own Record Keeping policies: Standard C30 states “All
entries in patients’ health records by health care professionals are dated, timed and signed, with the
signature accompanied by the name and designation of the signatory. Any alterations or additions are
dated, timed and signed, and made in such a way that the original entry can still be read. Outcome:
Patients are assured of appropriately completed health records which are created, maintained and stored
to standards which meet legal and regulatory compliance and professional practice recommendations”.
Furthermore under the NMC code of conduct 44 a nurse must not tamper with original records in any
way. By removing the original page and destroying it Elderholme altered the care plan without following
the correct procedures.

3) Elderholme continue that they are “not aware of any rules or regulations that state that they cannot
alter a care plan. Did Mrs Beddows have a special condition that needed appropriate professionals to be
involved? Who were the “appropriate professionals? The “condition” which Mrs Beddows has is that she
is an NHS funded Continuing Health Care patient and therefore the National Framework for
Continuing Health Care Commissioning, Care Planning and Case Management applies. Elderholme
and the CCG claim that it is “within the gift of the care home to review the care plan and update the care
plan without recourse to a GP or Consultant.”This contradicts the National Framework. Any change of a
care plan has to be agreed with all parties including relatives and not altered without consultation and
agreement and carried out in accordance with NHS’ own published policies. These include Department of
Health publications “Supporting People with Long Term Conditions – Commissioning Personalised
Care Planning”. Care plan amendments have to be approved by the NHS Review Officer, otherwise, as
the Independent Review reports, how could the NHS be assured that the agreed care was being provided.

4) In their Clinical Review Investigation the NHS concluded that the care plan for Mrs. Beddows should
not be altered without a formal review of her care needs, by the appropriate professionals, and only where
a formal review be indicated because there is a change in need identified. In November 2013 Mary Barlow
MSc,DMS,RGN, Clinical Quality, Safeguarding & Performance Lead, Continuing Health Care/Complex
Care Services Cheshire and Merseyside visited Elderholme Nursing Home and in her Report notes:
Continuing Health Care clinical reviews process confirms clinical reviews are undertaken by the
appropriate clinician and only when a change in clinical need has been identified is a change in the care
plan formerly acknowledged and agreed. Elderholme accept that this is current practice and the patients
care plan is agreed with the individualised Commissioning Nurse and altered with clinical discussion
between those clinical professionals involved in the patients care and as part of a clinical review”.
18
Despite acknowledging that they were aware of the regulations, Elderholme admit that they altered the
care plan so why did they not alter it in accordance with the correct procedures?

5) Because of her condition, Doreen’s care has to be conducted under the Mental Capacity Act which
calls for all decisions made on her behalf to be made in her best interests. Reducing hourly safety checks
to only when medication was given, as suggested by Elderholme, was an important decision which was
not in Doreen’s best interest. Furthermore, any decisions made must be recorded on the Metal Capacity
Act Record of Decisions Made within the care plan. The decision and with whom it was discussed, which
must include Doreen’s Deputy appointed by the Court of Protection, must be recorded. The Record from
the care plan shows that no decisions were entered thus ignoring the Act.

V) Matron’s Aggression

1) GP : I was unhappy with the meeting as Heather addressed Len in a very aggressive manner stopped
him from completing his sentences on a number of occasions and generally spoke down to him. To be
honest it was more like a headmaster addressing a pupil who was at fault rather than a useful discussion,
and so when I saw that this was distressing Mr Beddows I called an end to the meeting

2) Matron:Obviously the meeting did not go well as Mr Beddows was extremely angry and kept
interrupting GP and myself and would not listen.

3) LB: The matron claims that I was angry and kept interrupting. I was upset rather than angry. It was the
matron who interrupted me every time I tried to explain anything. At this time I did not know if these
complaints that the matron referred to, had been made or not so I was deeply upset.

4) Matron: Again I state that my job is to protect my staff and that is exactly what I was doing. Mr
Beddows did not realise at the time how close he came from receiving notice to leave and I as
management was doing everything reasonable to prevent this from happening. We have stated before we
had no issues whatsoever in caring for Mrs Beddows. The issues solely lie with dealing on a daily basis
for eleven years with Mr Beddows’ issues and constant unreasonable demands.I don’t think GP had any
understanding even after careful explanation from our staff of what they had to deal with on a daily
basis.I disagree with GP when he says I talked down to Mr Beddows and I was not aggressive, only
assertive in my manner. The above recollection of events can be confirmed by other qualified nurses as to
an accurate description of the meeting.
5) Elderholme CEO: “….not the recollection of the three other registered nurses who attended the
meeting”

6) LB: When I entered the nurse’s room there was only RGN Diane in there. She got up and went out.
After a while the matron entered with her assistant matron and Dr Meyer. There were NOT three other
nurses present at the meeting. They had all left before I was asked in. She disagrees with the GP and
myself when she says “I was not aggressive, only assertive in my manner” Why would she have to be
“assertive” anyway if her facts were correct.The GP said that he now understood where all this was
coming from and he called an end to the meeting. He confirmed to me in writing that he had no concerns
about my involvement in my wife’s care.

W) 15th Example of dishonesty - Issue of a Do Not Attempt Resuscitation order

1) GP: On 5th September 2011 I was visiting Elderholme when HW asked me to countersign a “Do Not
Attempt Resuscitation” form for Mrs.Beddows. I asked her if she had discussed the implications with Mr
Beddows and when she confirmed that she had I signed the form. Later Mr Beddows telephoned me to say
that the issuing of the form had NOT been discussed with him and I telephoned the Home and instructed
them to destroy the form as I now considered it invalid and then confirmed that discussion in writing.

2) Matron: GP is inaccurate and misleading. GP states that while visiting Elderholme to see another of
his patients I asked him to “countersign a Do Not Attempt Resuscitation Form” for Mrs Beddows. This

19
conversation took place in the nurses’ office with two other qualified nurses present. GP was writing at a
desk completing his documentation and I was sitting opposite him at the same desk. RGN Tanya
Blackstock sat six feet away at another desk and RGN Diane Edwards was standing in the office also. GP
states he asked me if I had discussed the implications with Mr Beddows and he says I confirmed that I had
in fact done this. The conversation actually went as follows: I said “Dr do you think it appropriate to
resuscitate Doreen Beddows?” Dr replied at once “No”
I replied “Does a DNAR Form need completing?”His reply at once was “Yes”.

3) LB: Why on earth would the matron ask the GP about DNAR for my wife when she was aware that I
had objected to one being issued. Elderholme had asked me several times to agree to a Do Not Attempt
Resuscitation authority and I said that I did not want one signing. Statement from Elderholme RGN: “I
confirm that I spoke to Mr Beddows regarding DNAR. He said that whilst his wife’s condition remained
stable he wanted every effort to be made to resuscitate her. I informed Matron of this both verbally and in
writing”.Because of my wife’s condition, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 applies to her care. Within the
care plan is a “Mental Capacity Record of Decisions Made”. On the bottom of page 2 it asks the question
“Have any advance decisions to refuse treatment been made”. Elderholme have written the answer “NO”.
I had also completed an Advance Care Plan in which I stated that I did not want a DNAR signing at that
time.

4) Matron: This conversation was witnessed by two other qualified nurses who will testify in writing that
is what was said. At no point did Dr ask me if I had discussed this with Mr Beddows. This also can be
testified by the same staff. It is not my position to speak to Mr Beddows, it is the responsibility of Dr as
her physician to discuss it with the patient or their representative. Because of Mr Beddows antagonism
towards me I would not have raised this matter with him.

5) LB: The Matron, now writes “Because of Mr Beddows’ antagonism towards me, I would not raise the
matter with him”. However on 24th August 2011,in the dining room about 3pm, the matron told me that
she was getting DNARs signed for all residents following a disagreement she had with the ambulance
service. I reminded her that I did not want such an authority signing for Doreen.

6) Matron: If Dr had asked me if I had spoken to Mr Beddows and gained consent why would I need to
lie to Dr. I would have said no, but you need to because it is the GP’s responsibility to do so. The DNAR
form was passed to Dr. by a qualified nurse, which he duly signed. I have never lied to any health
professional in my 30 year long career. I pride myself on my integrity and honesty and find it shameful
that Dr has suggested I lied to him when I have witnesses that will testify otherwise.The DNAR Form was
in fact destroyed as Dr. instructed.

7) LB: On 5th September 2011 the matron said that a DNAR had been signed. I told her that I was not in
agreement with it and she replied that it was a clinicians’ only decision. She then stuck a large red marker
on the room door to denote that a DNAR had been signed. The GP and the matron differ over the
conversation they had regarding signing the form, but she admits that it was her who raised the subject of
a DNAR with the GP even though I had told her that I disagreed. Elderholme state that nurses Diane and
Tanya (named nurse) can testify as to the exchange between the matron and the GP but both of these
knew that my ACP and the Mental Capacity statement, called for NO dnar to be issued. Why did these two
“witnesses” or the matron not tell the GP that I objected, or tell him that the Mental Capacity form in the
care plan, with which they were both familiar, stated that no advance decision to withhold treatment had
been made? Such an important decision should have been entered on the Mental Capacity Act Record of
Decisions Made but Elderholme neglected to enter with whom decision was discussed, who objected and
why it was made, as required under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

8) In a very similar case (Winspear v.City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust 2015) Mr Justice
Blake decided that the issue of a DNAR in 2011 without the express consent of relatives, was a violation
of the human rights of the patient under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. He reached this decision even
though the DNAR had been cancelled within ten hours and it had no effect on the treatment of the patient.
20
In our case the DNAR was in force for several days. Therefore even though Elderholme withdrew the
form they had still contravened the Act and had violated my wife’s human rights.

X) Summary

1) GP Statement: In November 2011 I became aware that a letter of eviction had been sent to Mr
Beddows following safeguard meetings between Elderholme and Social Services. I was not informed of
the decision or invited to attend the meetings. Had I done so I would have confirmed that in my opinion it
was not in Mrs Beddows’ best interests for her to be moved. I would also have been in a position to
mediate in the supposed breakdown in the relationship by relating the information contained herein.

2) As far as I know these matters have not been investigated by Elderholme because I have never been
asked by them to confirm any of the above points nor have they ever asked me for my opinion either orally
or in writing. In fact to this day they have not informed me that Doreen Beddows was asked to leave the
Home nor that she has left.

3) I have never found Mr Beddows to be confrontational or anything but helpful regarding the care of his
wife. I have got on very well with him over the many years that Doreen was in Elderholme and always
found his observations and comments helpful and useful. I think the fact that he visits her daily and is so
concerned for her well being is to his credit and something to be admired. I find it sad that after so many
years Doreen was effectively made homeless and this created enormous stress and uncertainty for Len and
really need never of happened.

4) I hope this information is helpful and informative.

5) Matron: Can GP explain why it would not be in Mrs Beddows’ best interests for her to be moved. She
regularly went home for the day. She is unaware of her surroundings as testified by both Mr Beddows and
GP.

6) LB: HW’s comments illustrate a complete failure to emphasise with her patients. Neither myself or the
GP has ever said that Doreen is unaware of her surroundings. I have said that she is unaware of the
constant criticism by the matron of her care needs. Since leaving Elderholme Doreen has had intensive
therapy from the neuro psychologist – she has low awareness and follows movement. Anyone with any
knowledge of such patients will be aware that even moving rooms can be traumatic. No matter what the
level of awareness, all patients should be treated as if they were fully aware.

7) Matron: Her physical needs can be followed by any team of health professionals to the same high
standard it was delivered at Elderholme for 11 years. Mr Beddows no doubt would spend everyday with
her in her new home, ensuring as he did here, everything was done to his liking and wishes.

8) LB: The NHS Clinical Review remarks that “The daily charts did not reflect that the care had been
consistently managed. Information was recorded in different places at different times. It is the opinion of
the reviewer that due to a lack of consistent record keeping, clinical care was compromised and fell below
expected standards.”

9) Matron: GP had been asked to mediate before by Elderholme staff and failed at that attempt as he
states in his letter. Had GP listened and understood the concerns of staff at that time he may have been
able to prevent her ultimate eviction.

10) LB: The GP did not fail when asked by the matron to mediate – on the contrary he uncovered the truth
about her accusations and that is why he did not support her. Had he been invited to the safeguard meeting
he would have been able to tell the committee that the matron’s accusations were not factually based.

21
11) Matron: Luckily GP never had reason to find Mr Beddows confrontational at any time. Elderholme
management and staff have a long history of a Mr Beddows being unreasonable and demanding.

12) LB: Doreen’s care needs were listed in a very comprehensive care plan and were all reasonable to
meet her care needs. I never demanded anything that was not written in the care plan.

13) Matron: I personally have felt harassed and threatened by Mr Beddows in his attitude towards me
personally.

14) LB: In the last twelve months my wife was at Elderholme I spoke with the matron on only three
occasions, two of which were when she came into the room of her own accord. Once she asked when Mrs
Liversage’s funeral was to take place and the other was to tell me that a dnar had been signed and was
nothing to do with me. Why these conversations would have been threatening to her is difficult to believe.

15) Matron: This feeling has been inflamed by recent events and the letter composed and sent by GP in
July 2012 and not seen by me until May this year adds to that feeling. The letter is provably inaccurate
and, coming from a doctor, potentially damaging to my professional reputation. Mr Beddows has
published it on the internet, spreading the damage and I seek urgent attention to this matter. Heather
Ward.

16) LB: The Commissioner for Freedom of Information has reviewed all of the statements and concluded
that they fall under the Data Protection Act and as such I am perfectly free to publish on the internet. The
following summarise some of the points which the matron claims to be “provably inaccurate”:

The matron writes “I pride myself on my integrity and honesty and find it shameful that Dr has suggested
I lied to him” . The matron claims to have witness statements from other staff who will verify her
accusations. From a staff of over ninety presently and well over two hundred former employees she refers
to complaints from four and those complaints were provably inaccurate. Even after all of this
Elderholme management have continued to fail their residents. CQC inspected Elderholme in 2015 and
reported :

Is the service safe? Requires Improvement;

Is the service effective? Requires Improvement;
Is the service caring? Requires Improvement;
Is the service responsive? Requires Improvement ;
Is the service well-led? Requires Improvement.

Elderhome write: “Regrettably the report published by the CCG is unbalanced, unchecked, full of
inaccuracies, errors of fact, and opinions on procedure contrary to accepted medical practice and
unsupported by guidelines.” Could it be that Elderholme themselves were UNAWARE of procedure and
accepted medical practices and guidelines because overall Elderholme circulated a falsified document,
made false accusations against me and the GP, gave incorrect information to the dieticians, neglected to
monitor urine, gave the GP false information which would have been detrimental to my wife’s care, and
was aggressive. They did not record their decisions as required under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 or
handle complaints according to The Local Authority Social Services and National Health Service
Complaints (England) Regulations 2009. They altered a care plan without following the proper procedures
as in the National Framework for Continuing Health Care Commissioning, Care Planning and Case
Management or the NMC code of conduct clause 44.They asked the GP to sign a Do Not Attempt to
Resuscitate authority knowing that it was without my agreement contrary to Article 8 of the Human Rights
Act. The NHS and Social Services have apologised. Elderholme have repudiated all of it.

Whose statement would you believe? People can make their own judgement as to whether the
potential damage to Elderholme’s reputation emanates from the GP or Elderholme themselves.

22
All documents referred to can be seen at www.scribd.com/document/251161043/Documentary-Evidence
The full complaint process can be seen at www.scribd.com/doc/234508123/Complaint-Process You can
read the NHS Clinical Investigation Report at www.scribd.com/doc/226717371/NHS-Clinical-Report and
the Final Report at www.scribd.com/doc/226717601/NHS-CCG-Final-Report
Both eviction letters can be seen at www.scribd.com/doc/222292287/Elderholme-Eviction-Letter
Doreen’s story can be seen at www.scribd.com/doc/230217688/Doreen-s-Story
The original and falsified eviction letters can be seen at:
www.scribd.com/doc/226717785/DASS-Report-Elderholme-Evict-Doreen-Beddows
and an abbreviated report can be seen at:
www.scribd.com/document/377631918/Elderholme-Nursing-Home-Lack-of-Integrity-doc

23