Blood test nurse with NO appointment got firemen to damage door.Who pays?

[logiccalls]

Someone who goes decades without any G.P. contact (being allergic to chemicals, and therefore never wanting to get pills) decided to get a private health MOT: The results were excellent, except for one which indicated it might be advisable to take a further blood test via the N.H.S.

The person was permanently disabled by a violent and stalking ex, therefore finds it difficult to get to a surgery, and asked them to send a home visiting nurse to do a blood test. This is a person made resilient by adversity, and keeping as healthy as possible, so with no history of mental problems or heart problems or anything else. (And even the requested blood test was resulting from a private MOT, which the NHS knew nothing about)

The GP has never been spoken to, just the receptionist, who promised to pass on the request for the blood test .

There was no further contact: NO appointment: No response: No email: No phone contact: No letter: No text.

Many weeks later, suddenly, a stranger had got into the block of flats, without using the intercom, and was agressively hammering on the flat door and trying to force the door handle to turn.

There was still no phone call, email or text. It could have been any intruder, inebriated, deranged or drugged. The occupant stayed silent.

The mobile phone rang, but with a witheld number, (which someone who has previously been stalked would of course never respond to.) Eventually, the stranger at the door went away. (There had been a parcel outside the door, before the stranger arrived, and as soon as she left, the occupant could at last open the door to retrieve it, and did so.)

An hour (?) later, a man was beating on the door as if to smash it in, and shouting. The occupant is deaf, but was obviously not going to open the door, to violent strangers, so again stayed silent. (But, because the parcel had been taken in, was clearly not lying unconscious on the floor for lack of a routine blood test, for which there had been NO appointment.)

The hammering on the door continued for hours, (?) and although the phone was constantly being rung, it was never used to send a text explaining there was any legitimate reason to attempt entry.

Later, it turned out the nurse had called the fire brigade, and it was their men taking over from her in battering the door. They then began to drill holes in the door.

The occupant had been unable to use the phone to try to get a lawyer, or to ring for any possible help from neighbours or the building caretaker. The 'number -witheld' calls were coming constantly.

With the flat's front door being destroyed, there was at last no choice for the occupant except to go to the door and call out "Who are you and what are you doing?"

A fireman explained who he was, and that there was a blood test nurse who had claimed that the occupant had "failed to attend an appointment for a blood test", which apparently he believed was justification for smashing the door. (?!)

a)There was NO such 'appointment'. b)The occupant had no idea who the nurse was, or the fireman was. c)Nobody texted.

But could it ever be reasonable to smash the door of someone for such a minor reason, for someone with no medical or mental illness history, and with evidence the person has taken in a parcel, so is obviously fit and well?

This is bullying and abuse of power, instigated by that extremely aggressive nurse, and enabled too readily by a fire brigade who were colluding in the constant phoning, yet never requesting a text should be sent, to a deaf occupant, to identify themselves or the blood test nurse, or to give information about the alleged "appointment".

(The medical records will not show much contact with the NHS, for decades, but there would be a note about deafness, so the fireman's statement that he had called out the word 'fireman' would not be justification to destroy a door.)

There is no house insurance. The front door is a security door and a fire door, so will be expensive to replace. Large holes have been drilled through it. Is it true, as the fireman suggested, that the NHS surgery will be liable to replace the front door?

Maybe exaggerating maybe unreliable narrator.

unfortunately when people are living with delusions or CPSD they can behave in strange ways (as OP is clearly doing, even on this thread it’s obvious) and strange behaviour can escalate very quickly with the authorities into extreme action (arrest, door breaking down etc)

taking OP as genuine she probably has parts of this traumatic experience that her brain has blocked out or reframed. As other posters have said there are clear signs of disassociation, delusion and paranoia.

The language clearly displays it (ie allergic to chemicals which apparently should obviously mean only certain substances therefore not particularly related to the word chemical, or serious enough to mention in one’s health history) but there are examples throughout each of the posters responses.

OP I’m sorry that you’re struggling so much. I strongly suspect that the authorities are more aware of you than you have described here and hope that they follow up appropriately.

Why is the OP persisting in talking about "this person" as if this entire story happened to someone else. It's all very odd. As is the entire response to the situation.

Hi , firstly I’m sorry you have been a victim of DV and live in fear . I would have thought due to this you would have robust security, a peep hole ,chains on your door, security cameras, or even a simple ring doorbell. Surely once you heard the banging you would be able to safely see who was at the door .

Address it to OP and leave it outside the front door.

I don't understand how this person was able to say they were housebound when they had not seen a GP for decades.

This is really odd. There must be a back story.

When my elderly parents were in their 90s, and with all kinds of health issues, had to almost beg to get home blood tests and with no transport other than family (who were working full time.)

They are doing that because it distances themselves from being responsible for the actions and makes them less of a 'target' for criticism.

By making it about 'someone else' they avoid being challenged, personally.

But could it ever be reasonable to smash the door of someone for such a minor reason, for someone with no medical or mental illness history,

This 'person' could never have requested a home visit for a blood test with no history of illness or mental health issues.

The NHS is so stretched they do not send nurses to do home blood tests 'on request'.

There is more to this than is being posted because it doesn't stack up.

Thanks but what on earth would be a welfare check, for someone in every way healthy
This alone shows a complete lack of awareness of the situation. Of course anyone healthy could find themselves in trouble. Fall, choking, or indeed, attacked....

Of your situation is as you describe, then you take some responsibilities. You get a ring door bell (aren't they exactly what they are for?). You contact the surgery and ask if they have sent a nurse. You put a note under the door asking who they are. You vall the police...

You did not of that and therefore faced consequences. Own up to your failures and be grateful there is a system in place to look after vulnerable people.

IF the OP was very healthy they could not get a nurse sent to do a home blood test. These are usually for the very ill, very elderly or totally housebound people.

So she is either in denial over her health (especially her mental health) or there is far more to this than she's saying.

But which chemicals are you allergic to? Literally everything is a chemical. You’re not allergic to “chemicals.”

Why didn’t you go and look through the peephole on your door yo see who it was?

No one calls a lawyer when they think someone is banging at their door due to stalking them; they call the police.

You behaved like someone with severe mental health problems. You couldn’t even look through the peephole or shout “who is it?” You hid. That’s not normal.

Many people do have sensitivities to all kinds of things - even those not prone to reaction are sensible if they wear rubber gloves to deal with cleaning fluids etc. But you mentioned allergies to chemicals in relation to the fact that you don’t take pills right at the front of your original post. People can get a variety of adverse reactions to the specific active ingredients in pills, especially if it is intended to have a major effect on the way a body is (mal)functioning. But a sweeping statement about allergies and pills suggests you think the base of tablets, the carrier, is going to be made of material that is going to provoke a reaction in itself.

Drug manufacturers go to great lengths to prevent that, the base is as inert as possible. People with gastric problems can have more difficulties than others with oral medication, which is why there are gastro protective alternatives and why omeprazole, for instance, is recommended with NSAID medication.

But this is not the same as saying pills are made of ‘chemicals’ you have an allergy to ‘chemicals’ therefore you won’t take them. At the same time as declaring vinegar - acetic acid and bicarbonate of soda- an alkali , safe cleaning products for you.

It’s alright- organic chemicals are ok 😭

Would be highly unlikely that the surgery would agree to a blood test, at home or in the surgery, out of the blue from a patient with whom they otherwise have no contact. It would have to be ordered by a doctor, possibly nurse, after a consultation or be as part of an ongoing monitoring programme.

IF the OP was very healthy they could not get a nurse sent to do a home blood test
That's incorrect. The criteria is that they are house bound. There would have been an assessment to insure the criteria was met at least at some point. You don't have to be unhealthy though, although most housebound patients usually are, just a need for healthcare, which OP needed if one result of her MOT required further investigation.

That’s not what the lawyer on the thread posted. They did have a lawful reason. Not calling in a welfare check could very well have been negligent.

Then get drama and complaints about “unsolicited mail”?
fuck me, who would want to work with the public these days! Mn is full of people who want to complain as they don’t get enough attention from services, then ones like who complain about getting a rare and lucky service (although if op had been refused this home visit; am sure would be suing about that too!)

It's not in this context @Medexpert
The OP says she has not had contact with her GP for decades.

She has had no assessment of any kind.

How could she be assessed and categorised as housebound if she's not seen a dr for decades?

If she is housebound for mental health reasons she would still have had an assessment.

Are you saying that having a private blood test then contacting the GP (who you've never used for decades) saying you are housebound (with no medical assessment) and asking for a home blood test for a relatively minor issue (according to OP) is credible?

How could she be assessed and categorised as housebound if she's not seen a dr for decades?
Because some practices are just really bad with managing their systems. She could have been classified as such 20 years ago (as in when the criteria was likely much looser), and it's remained on her notes, never reviewed. Any patient not seen for 20 years should have longed triggered a review, contact or something from the practice. If their system wont even trigger that, it's quite realistic they wouldn't have amended notifications of whether a patient is housebound or not!

There are an awful lot of 'ifs' in your attempt to explain this.

If this, if that, etc etc.

There are practices where patients are removed from the register if they have not seen a GP for years.

Are you a Dr or is that just your username?

My experience of helping housebound parents has shown me how hard home visits are for any reason.

Because it absolved her from taking any personal responsibility for managing the situation differently. Far more convenient to imply it's not her.

There are practices where patients are removed from the register if they have not seen a GP for years.

That seems a daft thing to do. Surely receiving per capita payments for patients they never have to see is the optimum situation for GPs?

I'm not posting to support or defend this. But to give the other side to your point, it would free up spaces for new patients, because their lists may be full.

There is no house insurance. The front door is a security door and a fire door, so will be expensive to replace. Large holes have been drilled through it. Is it true, as the fireman suggested, that the NHS surgery will be liable to replace the front door?

It was your choice not to answer the door, ask who was there, make a call to someone. It's been your choice not to have a doorbell camera, or a door chain or any other form of security that helps you manage your health issues.

you mention using the phone. But if you have absolute hearing loss it is your responsibility to find a way round this for day to day events.

Better to take control of this and make sure you're all set up for any future mishaps.
You need insurance- is this a council property, private rental or do you own it?
You need insurance at the very least for your personal possessions.

We usually accommodate patients who have requests for specific timed visits (other appointments, medical need) however the service is not able to accommodate requests so we don’t show up while they are having sex! We usually visit during ‘office hours’ unless someone has called us to come as an urgent visit in the night (blocked catheter, terminal patients requiring symptom relief).
That’s just how it is, we have hundreds of visits every day within the team, and lots of unplanned/emergency visits crop up daily so we would be forever missing booked appointments.

No I'd call the police. What's a lawyer or building caretaker going to do if it is a violent person banging down your door.