in which Ms Hotich informed Ms Duckworth that she was concerned because she was not developing a rapport with Michaela. Ms Duckworth said that she would make a time for them to discuss it further. This occurred shortly thereafter. Ms Duckworth said that she had a clear recollection of that more detailed discussion because they ended up making a decision that she described as not being a normal decision for CAMHS. That decision was to accede to Michaela’s and her mother’s request that Michaela’s father not be informed of Michaela’s involvement with CAMHS. Ms Duckworth described the decision as being in her mind interim decision’. We ‘an now know that it was never revisited. Ms Duckworth referred to a third occasion in which she discussed Michaela’s case with Ms Hotich. She said that she followed up with Ms Hotich to ensure that the task of making contact with Seymour College see whether we could get a message to ‘to the father through the school’ had been performed. Ms Duckworth acknowledged that none of these conversations were recorded in Michaela’s case file. Ms Duckworth also acknowledged that she had a conversation with Dr Garrood in 2012. She described this as being quite a lengthy conversation that lasted for up to 40 minutes. Although she did not specifically recall, Ms Duckworth acknowledged that is possibly the case that Dr Garrood had stated that he had a patient he wished to refer to CAMHS for psychiatric review. She said that this is something that is often requested by general practitioners, but which it is not CAMHS policy to accede to. She said that CAMHS Mount Barker has from 220 to 250 cases open at any one time and the consultant is only available two days per week. On the subject of the closure of Michaela’s file, Ms Duckworth stated that CAMHS is a voluntary service and could not prevent a client from withdrawing from treatment. Ms Duckworth was asked whether Ms Hotich informed her during their more detailed discussion that Michaela was quite depressed and had some suicidal ideation. Ms Duckworth agreed, saying: 'Yes, that’s quite a common presentation in CAMHS.' That response was somewhat defensive and was similar to a response of Ms Hotich’s about the frequency with which CAMHS’ staff are confronted with cases similar to that of Michaela. It is unfortunate in my opinion that Ms Duckworth adopted a tactic
in which Ms Hotich informed Ms Duckworth that she was concerned because she was not developing a rapport with Michaela. Ms Duckworth said that she would make a time for them to discuss it further. This occurred shortly thereafter. Ms Duckworth said that she had a clear recollection of that more detailed discussion because they ended up making a decision that she described as not being a normal decision for CAMHS. That decision was to accede to Michaela’s and her mother’s request that Michaela’s father not be informed of Michaela’s involvement with CAMHS. Ms Duckworth described the decision as being in her mind ‘an interim decision’. We now know that it was never revisited. Ms Duckworth referred to a third occasion in which she discussed Michaela’s case with Ms Hotich. She said that she followed up with Ms Hotich to ensure that the task of making contact with Seymour College ‘to see whether we could get a message to the father through the school’ had been performed. Ms Duckworth acknowledged that none of these conversations were recorded in Michaela’s case file. Ms Duckworth also acknowledged that she had a conversation with Dr Garrood in 2012. She described this as being quite a lengthy conversation that lasted for up to 40 minutes. Although she did not specifically recall, Ms Duckworth acknowledged that is possibly the case that Dr Garrood had stated that he had a patient he wished to refer to CAMHS for psychiatric review. She said that this is something that is often requested by general practitioners, but which it is not CAMHS policy to accede to. She said that CAMHS Mount Barker has from 220 to 250 cases open at any one time and the consultant is only available two days per week. On the subject of the closure of Michaela’s file, Ms Duckworth stated that CAMHS is a voluntary service and could not prevent a client from withdrawing from treatment. Ms Duckworth was asked whether Ms Hotich informed her during their more detailed discussion that Michaela was quite depressed and had some suicidal ideation. Ms Duckworth agreed, saying: 'Yes, that’s quite a common presentation in CAMHS.' That response was somewhat defensive and was similar to a response of Ms Hotich’s about the frequency with which CAMHS’ staff are confronted with cases similar to that of Michaela. It is unfortunate in my opinion that Ms Duckworth adopted a tactic
MUNDY%20Michaela%20Jayne.docx