• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

AssGH: Red Tape So What? Told U Already!

makapaaa

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>Scheme explained repeatedly to writer
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>




<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->WE REFER to the letter by Mr Kelvin Tan, 'Disability assistance: 81-year-old dad caught in red tape' (June 20).
Singapore General Hospital (SGH) and the Ministry of Health (MOH) have explained to Mr Tan on various occasions that under the Interim Disability Assistance Programme for the Elderly (Idape), disability assessments are typically done after a patient is discharged from hospital.
Even if an assessment is done in the hospital, a second assessment will most likely still be needed after the patient is settled in the community for a more accurate picture of his long-term disability. This may mean additional costs and further inconvenience the applicant and his family. For this reason, the applicant was advised to have only one assessment done, after discharge.
Physician assessors who are not employed by SGH require consent from the hospital and the managing doctors before visiting inpatients. This is because the assessors have to be briefed on the patients' medical condition while they are treated in hospital, as well as to protect the confidentiality of patients' medical information.
Notwithstanding the above, MOH and SGH had offered to work with Mr Tan on a faster solution, if necessary. However, Mr Tan was unwilling to identify his father (the patient) to MOH.
SGH's doctors, as well as staff from the Medical Social Services and Service Quality, have met Mr Tan on several occasions to clarify and address the issues raised. We note that Mr Tan's father has since been assessed by NTUC Income and his Idape claim has been approved.
Meanwhile, should Mr Tan need any other form of clarification or assistance, he may contact SGH and NTUC Income on 6326-5350 and 6877-3472 respectively.
Dr Wong Yue Sie
Chief Operating Officer
Singapore General Hospital
Karen Tan (Ms)
Director, Corporate Communications
Ministry of Health
 

makapaaa

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=heading>Latest comments</TD></TR><TR><TD id=messageDisplayRegion width="100%"><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" class=Post cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>> Notwithstanding the above, MOH and SGH had offered to work with Mr Tan on a faster solution, if necessary. However, Mr Tan was unwilling to identify his father (the patient) to MOH.

This letter makes it seem like the hospital really tried very, very hard to address Mr Tan's concern, and is implying that it is Mr Tan's fault that his father did not get assessed earlier.

Perhaps SGH should review the way it writes reply letters. I understand that as a large hospital, it does not see the need to apologise for anything. However, it would be nice if its reply letter could be more sympathetic.

I think this tone of "we tried so hard, and it was your fault that things didn't work" is uncalled for. Even if it is a matter of following a policy and the hospital believes that the patient's family had not understood clearly the reasons, the hospital's reply should still be more pleasant. There is no need to be so defensive.

The fact is that an inconvenience has been caused by red tape. Perhaps there is a better way of doing things? Why was it so difficult to get the hospital's doctors to brief the assessors?

Nowhere did we see the hospital thanking Mr Tan for his feedback. Does the hospital value public feedback, or does it think that its system is impervious to criticism?

Furthermore, I doubt that the hospital staff really tried so hard to make the disability assistance claim easy for Mr Tan. If they did provide adequate assurances and good customer service, the frustrated letter that Mr Tan wrote earlier would not come about.

But there is nothing in this reply letter that suggests that the hospital being apologetic about not having conveyed things adequately to Mr Tan... Is this necessarily the right attitude to take toward it's patient's families? I think if SGH doesn't buck up on its customer service soon, it's going to lose more of its richer patients (and doctors) to the private hospitals.
</TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>Posted by: bluebelle at Wed Jul 01 02:28:16 SGT 2009
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
 
Top