Audited HCP reports

I haven’t posted in a while but wanted to enquire if other Reps have explored or challenged the changes made to audited HCP reports?

I have found reports that have been audited and changed by the HCP many weeks after the assessment.

I have witnessed a HCP that felt that Reg 35 was satisfied only to change the recommendation twice after advice on audit to indicate the client was not entitled.

I have witnessed changed clinical findings.

I have witnessed the addition of specific reasoning at a later date which was not based on anything contained in the original report.

Given the weight tribunal’s can give to the HCP reports we have insisted that they are informed of the changes made to the report as well as a copy of the audit report and any correspondence between the auditor and the HCP.

We feel it is a serious issue that tribunal’s are being asked to weigh a piece of evidence without the knowledge that it has been edited and changed.

If the report has been audited, and you as the rep are aware of this, ask the Tribunal to direct that the original is included in the DWP submission. I am sure panels would be only too grateful to see how evidence has been doctored!

Had a nice one today. Signature on the report is not the name of the person who conducted the assessment. Oh dear.

It’s a good point. I’ve noticed similar on MR notices. Couldn’t figure out why clients were getting 2 x MR notices with different wording in key places. I now know.

Thanks Benny. This is what I do. I have been getting copies of the original report and an outline of the changes that have been made. I have also asked for copies of the actual audit report.

I had posted as I was unsure if this is as common an issue in GB and to highlight the issue to any reps who are unaware.

I was surprised and concerned that tribunals, client’s and Reps are not being made aware that a significant piece of evidence may have been edited due to quality issues. Where a tribunal must weigh 2 conflicting pieces of evidence it may be material to know that one piece of the evidence had identified quality issues prior to a determination.