Second Stage Complaints Policy.

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made (04/01/2008) regarding: Second Stage Complaints Policy.

Decision Reference: MD – H SS – 2007 - 86
Decision Summary Title :	Second Stage complaints		Date of Decision Summary:	31 December 2007
Decision Summary Author:	Mike Pollard, Chief Officer		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt?	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:
Written Report Title :	Second Stage Complaints		Date of Written Report:	31 December 2007
Written Report Author:	Mike Pollard, Chief Officer		Written Report : Public or Exempt?	Public
Subject: Second Stage Complaints Policy
Decision(s): The Minister approved the policy that advises the Patient/Service User how to make a complaint against Health and Social Services Department and how to follow this up if they are not satisfied with the response by having recourse to a new “second stage” of the complaint procedure.
Reason(s) for Decision: The revised arrangements fulfil a commitment made in the 2007 business Plan. An agreement has been made with Guernsey who will carry out a second stage Independent Review for Jersey and vice versa
Resource Implications: None
Action required: The Chief Officer to liaise with Guernsey Health and Social Services Department on the initiation of this policy, and to make the new arrangements widely known to the community.
Signature:		Position:
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Second Stage Complaints Policy.

Health and Social Services Department

Second Stage Complaints

From Chief Officer, Health & Social Services Department

To Minister, Health & Social Services Department

This report concerns the implementation of a “second stage” to the Health & Social Services Department’s complaints procedure. A commitment was given in the 2007 HSSD Business Plan that proposals will be placed before the Minister for implementation in 2008.

It is deemed that a “second stage” complaints procedure is required in the interests of openness, transparency and equity. Simply having a one stage appeal process means that effectively the Chief Officer and indeed the Minister and Assistant Minister can be seen to be both “judge and jury”. In other words, these individuals are making decisions on matters which they may have had a hand in, in the first place.

The attached document includes full reference now to a complaints procedure with both a first stage and second stage formal process. The first stage is very familiar territory and has been our practice for quite some time now. It is the “second stage” which is noteworthy and is an important development.

The second stage involves a unique and collaborative engagement with our colleagues in Guernsey. Should the second stage (the Independent Review Board stage) be initiated, then senior colleagues from the Guernsey Health & Social Services Department will undertake this process here in Jersey. Importantly, Guernsey colleagues will adjudicate having regard to the policies, practices and priorities of the Jersey Health & Social Services Department. My Senior Management Team colleagues and I will reciprocate by undertaking the same service in Guernsey – having regard to the policies practices and priorities of the Guernsey Health & Social Services Department.

Of crucial significance is the role of the Medical Officer of Health and lay representatives. Their role is to either refer the complaint back for local resolution (returning to the first formal stage), decide that the complaint cannot ever be resolved, or initiate the independent review process referred to above. This is an important “filtering mechanism” to ensure that vexatious or frivolous complaints received through to the higher stage of independent review and resolution.

There will be a need to appoint two lay representatives. They would be accountable to you for the exercise of their judgement. The post would be subject to the appointment processes of the Appointments Commission and will attract a modest honorarium or fee.

Two other matters of importance I feel are:

Reference is made to the Chief Officer deciding whether a person (usually a relative or close friend) is an appropriate person to make a complaint on behalf of a patient or service user. This is to prevent an occurrence (which sadly has occurred in Jersey) namely circumstances by which a relative or close friend seeks to represent a patient or service user to get their hands on a potential inheritance of some kind – or to seek to undermine another relative or close friends’ claim for such an inheritance.

I would recommend that the procedure (most certainly the second stage) is subject to a full review after 12 months in operation. Fine tuning might be required as it may well be that the threshold for referral through to the second stage is either too high (in other words, very, very few cases indeed being considered) or too low (in other words, minor and vexatious and frivolous claims abound).

I recommend that the Minister makes a Ministerial Decision in support of this way forward.

Mike Pollard

Chief Officer

31 December 2007