Concerned Wise Friend Bangs Head Against ACC Wall

EMAILS ABOUT ME... NOT TO ME

From: CONCERNED FRIEND
Sent: Tuesday, 20 October 2009 11:04
To: Sensitive Claims
Subject: re Danielle

I am very concerned about the current mental state of Danielle who has been receiving counselling under ACC sensitive claims for a sexual assault. I am a personal friend of hers. She was advised yesterday that she has only 5 more sessions with her counsellor and will then be not entitled to any further sessions until she has a review. The date for this review is unclear. Regardless of the future goals and directions of ACC sensitive claims counselling, this woman has had 2 sessions of counselling weekly for some time. She is now dependant on this support for her well-being. ACC have a responsibility in creating this dependence and in my opinion they have a responsibility to continue this support until an alternative arrangement/treatment can be found. This woman’s life is in danger and she needs to be carefully managed if her dependence on counselling is to be reduced. I understood the ACC counselling changes were not applicable to those who were already receiving services but only applied to new cases. This woman is at serious risk of harm if she is not given adequate support and if one support is being suddenly withdrawn, an alternate option needs to immediately be put in place. I am putting this in writing to you because if there is a coroners inquest I want it noted that I warned your department of the serious likely clinical consequences of your actions.

Regards
CONCERNED FRIEND


then.....


From: Kimberleigh O'Hara [mailto:mailto:kimberleigh.o] On Behalf Of Sensitive Claims
Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2009 9:11 a.m.
To: 'CONCERNED FRIEND'
Subject: RE: re Danielle

Dear 'CONCERNED FRIEND',

Thank you for your email regarding the above client.

I have noted your concerns about this client. Danielle has had over 240 hours of counselling to date, and a Diagnostic and Treatment Assessment is required to advise on whether the treatment she has currently been receiving is meeting her needs, and also what future treatment options will be appropriate. The aim of therapy is to teach clients the skills to manage their symptoms, and it is unreasonable to expect that clients will be free of challenges or problems following therapy. They should be able to use the skills obtained through therapy to cope and manage emotional needs and there should be a focus on relapse prevention right from the start of therapy. It is of real concern to ACC that any client still has acute issues after this length of counselling.

5 Sessions of counselling was given to assist her through this assessment process. If the Diagnostic and Treatment Assessment report indicates the need for further treatment, this will be considered by ACC. Please note that a list of suitable assessors has been provided to the client's counsellor, and the case manager is in contact with the client about this process. Approval has also been given for Danielle to attend 8 sessions of EMDR treatment.

Please be aware that ACC has the best interest of its clients at heart, and carefully considers any decision it makes so as to facilitate the client's rehabilitation. If there are concerns for the mental state of the client the provider and the clients GP has a duty of care to inform the relevant crisis agencies of this and put measures in place to address any issues - i.e. the CATT team through the local DHB which ACC funds through its Public Health Acute funding. I have also asked the Case Manager to inform the client's counsellor and GP of your concerns for the client's wellbeing.

Kind regards
Sensitive Claims


then...


From: CONCERNED FRIEND
Sent: Thursday, 22 October 2009 10:18 a.m.
To: 'Sensitive Claims'
Subject: RE: re Danielle

Dear Sensitive Claims
Thank you for your reply. I am as concerned as you that after 240 hrs of counselling Danielle remains in semi-acute state although I will state her counselling has reduced her risk factors considerably over the past 2 years. She has remained substance free and has not self-harmed now for the longest time since I have known her. Phoning her on her cell-phone when she was in the middle of a medical procedure for a kidney complaint was dangerous and irresponsible. She came very close to taking her life after that phone call. I am not saying I dispute ACC right to conduct a review process, I am however, very concerned at the process of the review process. Danielle will never go near a CATT service. She has had too many bad experiences with them over the years. She has actively self-harmed in last week for first time in 8-9 months and she is as close to suicide as I have known her to be in the 7 years of our friendship. This risk increase is due to the ACC process. Thank you for taking my concerns seriously. I don’t make a habit of complaining or being dramatic. This situation has me very worried for her safety, but I also accept any decision she makes is ultimately her choice. I only ask that the process of changing whatever treatment she is receiving happens carefully and with extreme sensitivity.


then...


From: Selena Dominguez [mailto:Selena.Dominguez@acc.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 22 October 2009 10:58 a.m.
To: CONCERNED FRIEND
Cc: James Du Plessis; Sue Walker
Subject: RE: re Danielle

Hi CONCERNED FRIEND,

Thank you for your email below regarding Danielle.

Due to the concerns highlighted in your email I have discussed Danielle's claim with my Branch Manager and we have contacted Danielle's GP, Dr ..........., directly and she is going to get in touch with Danielle immediately.

Regards
Selena Dominguez, Case Manager, ACC


then...


From: CONCERNED FRIEND
Sent: Thursday, 22 October 2009 11:21 a.m.
To: 'Selena Dominguez'
Subject: RE: re Danielle Martin

Hi Selena
Thank you for contacting Danielle’s GP but I think you are missing the point. It is ACC actions and process that is causing the problem here. Don’t palm this off on CATT or GP please. Take some responsibility and adjust your process. That is what I requested. You cannot phone someone on their mobile phone and announce their 2 years of therapy is going to end in 5 more sessions. That is totally unprofessional and clinically unsafe. Danielle needs to be managed very carefully and information conveyed very safely. She has asked this of you already I know and I stress, Danielle will have nothing to do with CATT services or anyone trying to assess her risk. She is an expert at telling them what they need to know and getting rid of them. She knows the last thing CATT wants is a person like her on their caseload so she makes it easy for them to assess her as “safe”.

I will be direct now: What I would like is for Danielle to be informed there will be no interruption in her current level of counselling support until after a review process decides what that level of support should be. Telling her she had 5 more counselling sessions and then a review will decide if she needs more, with no set date for the review, leaves her exposed and vulnerable and that is what is causing her risk to rise. I know you are doing your job, but please try to understand what I am saying in these e-mails and don’t make it someone else’s responsibility. It is yours.





END OF COPIED EMAILS.




I feel as though I am involved in a slow motion car crash. I am making sure as much of what is going on is as documented as possible.
There is many immediate issues that come to mind after I was copied the above...
- Why did ACC intimately discuss my claim with someone who is not one of my treatment providers in any way?
- Why is there information, decisions, directives in the ACC email responses regarding my care that I nor any of my treatment providers have been informed of? Even further there is information stating opposite intentions from an email recieved two days previously by my therapist, ensuring no disruption to my therapy during the data process!
- Who are the people (Cc: James Du Plessis; Sue Walker) who are being copied information about my claim?

I had no knowledge of these emails until I was copied the above in its entirity. I am still unsure about what level of anonymity I am aiming for, therefore the 'CONCERNED FRIEND' substituted for this persons name, not only is this person obviously someone that knows me quite well, but also someone who is well respected and qualified in the area of mental health.


More to write in another post...

I no what is happening isnt right or fair, but I know that doesnt mean that it's going to stop happening.

I'm very very scared right now.