January 2017 update.
More than a month past the statutory 40 days the CQC finally released their files. You can see where the time has been spent on blacking out names and content, some files omitted altogether and the communications from NHS England we wanted to see is missing. Apologies for the quality, it seems we were received scanned pictures of actual files through the censoring process.
Our comments have had some positive influence, as gender reassignment will no longer be required for doctors in small practices, and we saved planet earth as oxygen will not stop working in 2019.
A surprising admission between all the false negative comments:
"I must make it absolutely clear there have not been any concerns about his care of patients."
[Is patient care not the purpose of our existence? Maybe not on planet CQC.]
However much of the documents confirms the prejudicial and denigrating attitude of the CQC to the practice:
"As expected Dr Beerstecher has submitted a substantial factual accuracy challenge"
[Yes, the challenge matches the number of factual 'inaccuracies']
"The practice manager is Dr Beerstechers wife and works ½ time as the only practice nurse and ½ time as PM. "
[Followed by a blacked out comment that could not bear the light of day.]
"the role of PN/PM (the same person and his wife)"
[another denigrating remark, Mrs Beerstecher has been a nurse longer than Dr Beerstecher has been a doctor, and has many more qualifications in her field both as manager and nurse than Dr Beerstecher has in his field. Mrs Beerstecher left a well paid job and has been working for less than the average nurse or manager earns since 2001.]
"he is loved by his patients and local media"
[We had a headline "GP Dr Hendrik Beerstecher's surgery gets lowest possible score from CQC" you can see why the idiot authors of the emails have their names removed if this is being loved by the media.]
"The team felt he is practising defensively due to a historical patient complaint."
[You can see on our previous page and during all consents that the audio recordings of the consultations were started because there are too many inspectors who appear to enjoy putting others down with unfounded criticism. The reason for recording consultations was also published in the British Medical Journal.]
"we have been asked to report on this subject in all of our other single handed GP practices"
[Forcing GP's to undergo gender reassignment confirmed as a CQC policy]
Remember the denial on the youtube video that the visit was anything other than coincidental? (confirmed on additional audio recordings by other members of the visiting team)
"NHS England asked us to push it up our schedule"
"this inspection was moved up our schedule and on our radar due to ongoing problems with engagement as reported by NHS England/CCG & LMC"
The documents also indicate that it took 6 versions of re-drafting the report to make out our practice was 'inadequate' instead of 'requires improvement'.
"however through the review process (now on version 6) working through 2 subsequent MRMs with legal and factoring in risk we now feel it is inadequate."
Dr Beerstecher had looked through the justification in the 'merged' file in October and noted that a lot of items referred to had been sent in one email with 7Mb of attachments and another email once it became clear that the CQC had requested the wrong information. To check that the CQC had received it Dr Beerstecher sent an email with screenshots and the 'missing' information to verify whether the CQC had received the relevant emails. You can see from document 35 on the right that items had not been received or were missing from the files of the CQC.
If it comes to light that a report is based on incorrect information, should the information be requested and the report reviewed? Should it be clarified what has gone wrong? Not taking any action, not offering any explanation shows there is no intention to produce an honest, factually correct report.
After forcing Dr Beerstecher to refute the false allegations and publish the evidence of the inspection, the CQC, NHS England and Swale CCG colluded to discredit Dr Beerstecher and send false allegations to the General Medical Council.
If there was really a problem in the surgery, would you need three organisations with legal teams and press offices to manage the situation of one single handed country GP? Would you have to fabricate 'evidence'?
Or would you need this amount of people to justify and cover up a false report?
Just updating our website and having to wade through the repulsive communications has been a nauseating experience. No explanation has been given why parts of the contents have been censored or why the report from NHS England has been omitted. We requested the missing information on the 23rd January and should have received this already: further delays on the part of the CQC.