
AWP have strongly rejected the report’s findings that records were falsified and that they were changed to meet performance targets set by management.
The report was set-up by the Primary Care Trusts (which commissioned AWP) and by the South-west Strategic Health Authority (which was already investigating AWP) – both organisations were abolished in the coalition government’s reorganisation of the NHS.
AWP currently provides mental health services for Wiltshire, Bath and North-east Somerset, North Somerset, South Gloucestershire, Bristol and Swindon.
The unpublished report followed concerns by 30 staff members that patients’ records had been falsified and it found that some records had been changed and said records were ‘undoubtedly’ changed to meet performance targets. The report was completed in the summer of 2012.
This was at a time when another report, the Sutherland Report, criticised AWP severely for its centralised, top-down, target centred management. It now has new management and a localised structure.
In rejecting these allegations, AWP’s Director of Nursing and Quality, Hazel Watson wanted to reassure the Trust’s service users: “When these allegations were brought to our attention we were deeply concerned and fully investigated the 17 cases.”
“Our electronic system shows the complete history of any entries made to the record and in no case was there any evidence to suggest that anyone had deliberately fabricated a record by changing details.”
“Neither AWP’s investigation, nor subsequent investigations by independent parties found any evidence to support the claims and the matter is now officially closed.”
The investigations did reveal some inconsistent practice in the way information was added to the electronic patient records system, but this, AWP said, was as a result of inadequate staff training.
Marlborough News Online understands that the allegations almost certainly arose after the date on which patients were contacted or visited became confused with the date on which the staff member entered their report into the system.
The report was released by AWP in response to a Freedom of Information request. As the report was not commissioned by AWP they believed they were not entitled to publish it. Following advice from the information commissioner, it was made it available.
It appears from the sequence of events that the report remained unpublished because those who commissioned it were satisfied there was no case to answer.
[Note: the website news story reached by the link in the first paragraph above includes a further link to the report itself.]









