Last update 15th. May 2004



Dear Hilary

As usual I find myself broadly in agreement with you - probably why I got involved in the first place. I am much aware of tensions between CIDA and CIPPH: the latter seem to dump whatever they can on the former. A typical example of this is the attitude to totally non-active Forum members. It is my view that CIPPH makes the choice so they should follow up the consequences of that choice. I could give other examples. The idea that people who do not turn up for say 3/12 are deemed to have resigned is worth exploring, 'though there may be exceptional cases (I was in isolation for 8 weeks and housebound for a while after that).

Another sore spot for me is the level of staff management/supervision. OK, I am clinical, but did not let junior staff loose on patients until I was certain that they were competent and, more important, recognised their limits. This clearly does not always happen at CIPPH. And, as you say, there is no transparency: personal notes are welcome, but we need a proper organisation chart with our entry points clearly indicated.

May I remind you that I asked you for a breakdown of email addresses by Forum if possible? Also, when I 'reply all' several bounce. Do you have that problem?

This debate is really valuable. I think that we need regular meetings like last Thursday's, open to all Forum members, and with CIDA, CIPPH et all able to attend as observers. Nick, that can be added to my last communication.

Cheers and thanks