NHS 111 whistleblower speaks: Three weeks’ training and I was making life or death decisions with no one to turn to for help

By KATHERINE FAULKNER and ANDY DOLAN and JOSH WHITE and PAUL BENTLEY FOR THE DAILY MAIL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

  • 21-year-old mother of one left after four months due to pressure of the job
  • She has spoken out because she is so concerned about operation of 111
  • She said: ‘I was suddenly being asked to make life-or-death decisions’ 

Irsah Tahir, 21, worked for NHS 111 as a call handler earlier this year. But after four months, she decided she could no longer cope.

The mother of one from Derby was so concerned about what she saw that she has waived her anonymity to speak out.

Irsah Tahir, 21, worked for NHS 111 as a call handler in Derby, Derbyshire, earlier this year but quit after four months because she could no longer cope

Irsah Tahir, 21, worked for NHS 111 as a call handler in Derby, Derbyshire, earlier this year but quit after four months because she could no longer cope

When my friends or family members ask me about 111, my advice to them is simple: don’t call it. After four months working there, I saw enough to know that the service is simply not safe.

The people who take your calls at 111 have no medical training.

The NHS says we always have access to a clinically-trained person we can ask for help – but in my experience that is just not the case. Frequently we had no nurse at all to help us with the life or death decisions we had to make.

We’d come in, and the managers would just casually say: ‘We’ve got no nurses today, so just deal with things as best you can.’

At other times you’d log in to your computer, and a little instant message would pop up on your screen to say: ‘No nurse today, so please do your best to resolve calls yourself.’

It was awful to see that. When I started the job at 111, I had no idea it was going to be like it was.

I thought it was more of an administrative job – someone’s hurt their leg, we’re directing them to a walk-in centre.

Instead, I was suddenly being asked to make life-or-death decisions over the phone – with sometimes no one to turn to for help.

I worked the night shift – starting at 10pm, and finishing work at six in the morning.

The night-time shift is the shift that nobody wants to do. And as a result it is usually short-staffed.

And the pressure is absolutely non-stop.

In other jobs I’ve had, you know who your manager is, people say hello, you are briefed on what you will be doing.

But at 111, that rarely happens because everyone is too busy.

You are expected to get in, sit down – any seat will do – get your headset on and get on with answering the calls that are piling up. No one even says hello – there isn’t time. The chatter in the call centre can get incredibly loud at busy times.

It’s difficult to hear yourself think. You can see people with their fingers in one ear, trying to block out the noise.

It’s an incredibly isolated job. And because we are so stretched, there is very little support when things get difficult.

The pressure on the call advisers is just massive. Sometimes, you sit in your chair and don’t leave it for an entire eight-hour period. It just gets too much, particularly with the noise.

You look up at the screens that tell us how busy we are, and you can see they have turned back, because we are not answering people’s calls.

Where the numbers are against a red background, you know there are patients piling up, waiting to speak to a nurse.

It just gives you a sick feeling in your stomach.

At night, the people calling in are mostly worried parents with sick babies, elderly people who have had a fall – and people with serious mental health problems.

I once had a patient who believed he was possessed by the devil – I could hear that he was smashing his head against a wall.

On other occasions I had patients who said they were going to commit suicide. I had a man once who told me he was about to kill himself with his young son in the house.

Ms Tahir worked at this NHS 111 call centre in Derby, Derbyshire, but said she could never have prepared herself for the role, claiming on some days she was asked to make life-or-death decisions, often without help

Ms Tahir worked at this NHS 111 call centre in Derby, Derbyshire, but said she could never have prepared herself for the role, claiming on some days she was asked to make life-or-death decisions, often without help

We had had a workshop of about 20 minutes on suicide – and that was it. And yet we were supposed to be advising these people.

Sometimes, they would scream and shout at you down the phone, incredibly distressed. You just feel powerless. I felt physically ill all the time I was working for 111. It wasn’t just the hours, I felt stressed constantly: You’re just so under pressure all the time.

Anything with babies terrified me because it’s just impossible to tell anything over the phone.

The parents don’t know, and the baby can’t talk, so what chance do you have of making the right call?

There’s been at least one death of a baby associated with the 111 service in my area.

I was suddenly being asked to make life-or-death decisions over the phone – with sometimes no one to turn to for help
Former NHS 111 worker Irsah Tahir 

Call handlers at the 111 service have no medical knowledge beyond what we have learned on a basic two-week course.

This is despite the fact that – as our training documents state – we are responsible for an ‘incredibly complex process’ during which ‘a poor decision can cause a patient’s death’.

Because we are not medically qualified, we have to use a computer system called ‘pathways’ developed by the NHS to work out whether we think patients are in need of urgent treatment or not.

We are supposed to be able to consult a nurse – or transfer the patient to speak to a nurse directly – if we are not sure. But this was often impossible.

Even when we did have nurses on duty, it was usually just one, and they would quickly be overwhelmed. On the screens on the walls of the call centre, you could see how many people were waiting to speak to the nurse.

If there were three or four already waiting – as there usually was – it was pointless even trying to get through.

I once had to wait ages in the queue with a patient on the line who I believed was having a stroke.

Former NHS 111 worker and whistleblower Irsah Tahir, 21, (pictured), who has waived her anonymity to raise her grave concerns, said sometimes only nine call centre workers were available to take calls from a health region covering 2.3million people across Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Northamptonshire

Former NHS 111 worker and whistleblower Irsah Tahir, 21, (pictured), who has waived her anonymity to raise her grave concerns, said sometimes only nine call centre workers were available to take calls from a health region covering 2.3million people across Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Northamptonshire

But the computer said they didn’t need an ambulance – and without speaking to the nurse, I can’t override the decision. So I had to wait in the queue. With strokes, after a certain amount of time, nothing can be done to stop the damage.

I just remember thinking: I’m wasting time waiting for a nurse and this person could be losing the use of their arms or legs.

It is horrendous. Even though we were paid only £7.10 an hour, we were so busy that people had to be brought in to bring us drinks at our seats.

TICKBOXES THAT DECIDE YOUR FATE

The 111 number is intended for those who urgently need medical advice.

In clearly life threatening situations, patients should always call 999.

But the 111 number is meant to be used when someone has concerns about their health or another person’s, but is unsure whether it is serious or what they should do.

The number was rolled out nationwide in 2013, and is run by different bodies in each of the different regions of England. It replaced NHS direct, which was a nurse-led advice line for patients.

Unlike NHS direct, which was staffed mainly by clinically trained staff such as nurses and paramedics, 111 relies on advisers who have no clinical training.

As a result it has been highly controversial, and some doctors claim it is unsafe for patients. The call advisers use a computer to input the symptoms described by the patient. They are then guided through a flow-chart of tick boxes which asks a series of questions.

Based on the answers given, the computer system will – in theory – provide the best course of action of the patient. On some occasions, for example, it might state that the patient requires an ambulance immediately.

At other times it will recommend the patient attends a walk-in centre within four hours, or that the patient should simply try to see their GP within seven days. The Government claims that those answering the phones at 111 are ‘highly trained advisers’. Crucially, they are supposed to be constantly ‘supported by healthcare professionals’, such as ‘experienced nurses and paramedics’. 

Evidence seen by the Mail shows that this is often not the case.

These people would come around with mugs full of instant coffee to keep up going. It was ridiculous.

But I literally could not get up to go and get a cup of tea because there were just too many calls and too few staff.

People used to eat at their desk too – even though it wasn’t allowed.

They’d get fruit and sweets and pass them around to keep us all going. I never had a proper lunch break.

One of the biggest problems with 111 is that it relies on a computer system.

Sometimes, there are questions you want to ask, but you have to stick to the script on your screen.

If you feel the computer is taking you off in the wrong direction, there is nothing you can do. There have been numerous occasions when I think the computer has got the decision wrong.

In those cases, you have to call the nurse for advice – but often you can’t get hold of them.

I remember once, I had a patient – someone with a baby – I thought needed an ambulance straight away, but the computer said they didn’t.

I went to my manager but she didn’t have any medical training either. There was no nurse to ask and so you’re just stuck.

In the end, she agreed the patient did need an ambulance, and we sent one but by then we had wasted valuable time.

Most people who work at 111 find it utterly demoralizing.

Many of them panic and send too many ambulances out because like me, they don’t know what to do and have no one to ask. The managers check on everyone’s statistics, though, and you can get in trouble if you seek advice from nurses too much, or send out too many ambulances. I was once told off for trying four times in a row to get through to a nurse for advice on what do about a sick baby.

I was told I should stick to procedure – which was that we only try twice, then leave the patient in a queue.

But I didn’t want to leave them, I felt they urgently needed help. Another colleague of mine was hauled in by the bosses over sending too many ambulances.

He told them he’d rather be safe than sorry, and that if he had a nurse he could ask advice from he wouldn’t have to.

But the bosses were having none of it. They told him that East Midlands ambulances were stretched and we were putting too much pressure on them.

When he came out, he said well, until we’ve got someone to ask, what am I supposed to do?

After all, despite all the problems, it’s made very clear to us that if something goes wrong with a patient, we will carry the can.

If someone dies, we will be sent out to coroners’ court to explain why we didn’t send out an ambulance. 

 

 

Boy left brain damaged after Great Ormond Street ‘ignored advice of his medical scientist mother’

Gabrielle Ali says her son’s disabilities – which mean he cannot walk or talk – are the result of a series of blunders by Great Ormond Street

Elijah Ali suffered serious brain damage and can no longer walk or talk

Elijah Ali suffered serious brain damage and can no longer walk or talk 
  

An 11-year old boy has been left brain damaged after a leading hospital ignored the advice of his medical scientist mother, she claims.

Gabrielle Ali says her son’s disabilities – which mean he cannot walk or talk – are the result of a series of blunders by Great Ormond Street.

After her son developed a complication following routine surgery at the world famous hospital, she was told to take son Elijah to her local hospital.

There, under direction of Great Ormond Street, Accident & Emergency doctors gave him a blood thinner called heparin that Miss Ali claims put Elijah into cardiac arrest.

She knew the blood thinner would damage her son but pleas to doctors were ignored.It was 45 minutes before the resuscitation team managed to restart her child’s heart.

Gabrielle Ali with her son Elijah

After being starved of oxygen for so long, Elijah suffered serious brain damage and can no longer walk or talk.

Ms Ali, 31, said: “From my scientific knowledge I knew it wasn’t safe to give heparin to my son as his haemoglobin – red blood cell level – was so low.

“The lowest safe level is around 84. Elijah’s was off the scale at 50. He desperately needed a blood transfusion first.

“I was really anxious that heparin would thin the blood around Elijah’s body too much and put his vital organs at risk.”

“I argued with doctors at Watford General Hospital where I was told to take him by Great Ormond Street. But they said they were acting on the instructions of Great Ormond Street. They threatened legal action if I tried to remove him from the hospital.”

“From my scientific knowledge I knew it wasn’t safe to give heparin to my son as his haemoglobin – red blood cell level – was so low.”
Mother Gabrielle Ali

As she tried to convince doctors at Watford and – via the telephone – Great Ormond Street, her petrified son asked her: “Mum, are they trying to kill me?” she said.

Within seconds of heparin being infused into a vein Elijah went into cardiac arrest.

Elijah now needs constant care

He was born with congenital heart defects and a cleft palate, had undergone a dental operation at Great Ormond Street in late March 2014.

Because he had an artificial heart valve, he is on a commonly used blood thinner called warfarin to reduce the chance of clots developing.

After the operation he bled heavily but when he was discharged when it stopped, despite his mother’s concerns. Once home he started bleeding again.

Great Ormond Street advised he be taken to Watford’s A&E unit. He was treated with a blood clotting agent and sent home.

Miss Ali says her son continued to be unwell but that it was not until March 31st that Great Ormond Street agreed to carry out a blood test.

The next day she was told his haemoglobin level was abnormal but was told to go to Watford hospital, as Great Ormond Street had no beds.

Staff at Watford made plans to carry out a blood transfusion the next day.

But before doing so, on the instructions of Great Ormond Street, they ordered a heparin infusion, despite Miss Ali’s protests.

Her son now cannot walk or talk and needs constant care.

She has hired solicitors Irwin Mitchell to press a case of gross medical negligence against Great Ormond Street.

She told The Daily Telegraph: “It was torture, knowing what would happen if Elijah was given heparin but being unable to stop it. I tried my best to fight them, but they didn’t listen.

A serious incident report by Watford Hospital said its staff were working under the instructions of Great Ormond Street Hospital.

West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust said: “We recognise that there are lessons to be learned in relation to the care provided to Elijah, including in relation to the advice we received from the specialist hospital in charge of his case. As a result, we have made a number of changes which will help prevent a similar event happening again.

Dr Vin Diwakar, medical director at Great Ormond Street Hospital, said: “We cannot imagine what an immensely difficult time this must be for the family.”

He said an investigation had been launched, but that it was not yet possible to determine whether anything could have been done differently.

Third of workers would turn a blind eye to illegal or dangerous activity by employer for fear of losing jobs

Manchester Evening News  10 SEPTEMBER 2015
BY TODD FITZGERALD

Research revealed that the number of people who would consider blowing the whistle rose to 67pc if they could complain anonymously


A third of British workers would turn a blind eye to illegal or dangerous activity by their employer through fear of the repercussions, research by Manchester solicitors has revealed.

More than 50pc of respondents in a survey by Manchester employment law specialists Slater and Gordon said they would keep quiet if bosses were up to no good because they would be scared of losing their job.

Others said they would fear how would be treated by colleagues after coming forward – and if they’d even be believed.

But research revealed that the number of people who would consider blowing the whistle rose to 67pc if they could complain anonymously.

North West Trades Union Congress regional secretary, Lynn Collins, said: “These figures are worrying. Workers should be supported in speaking out about illegal or dangerous practices – after all it isn’t likely to be for their own benefit that they would speak out.

“The statistics show us that the balance of power in a workplace is tilted in favour of the employer and that should be tackled.

“This underlines the need for strong trade unions in the workplace. Where unions are present in work, they can ensure whistle blowers are protected and supported.

“Policies on such matters are often in place in unionised workplaces. It’s also likely that such practices would be raised by trade unions present in the workplace on behalf of their members, giving workers a voice on such issues.”

The study of 2,000 workers showed almost half – 49pc – said they would come forward if they had legal protection from being mistreated and would get financial compensation if they were sacked. And 17pc said they would speak out if there was a cash reward.


A quarter said they would keep quiet out of loyalty to their employer – and more than a fifth said they would feel it wasn’t any of their business to speak out.

Results revealed that 16pc of people had spoken out, with almost half of those exposing health and safety breaches. Some 29pc said they had raised concern over illegal activity.

Over half of those who had exposed wrongdoing said they were treated differently after coming forward, with 30pc saying they were constantly criticised by their boss.

And one in 10 were fired or made redundant after speaking out.

One respondent said they had reported colleagues who drove trains for smoking cannabis at work. Another raised concerns over a doctor who was secretly filming patients.

Other examples included employers avoiding tax; document forgery; stealing; witness harassment; and bullying.

Employment lawyer Samantha Mangwana said: “It is alarming that a third of people are scared to come forward and expose even the most serious wrongdoing at work because they are concerned about the repercussions.

“The fact that a large percentage of people said they wouldn’t speak out, even if they saw the law being broken, illustrates just how worried people are about what will happen to them if they do.

“It takes a lot of bravery to blow the whistle, but it needn’t be as terrifying as some people seem to think as long as they get the right legal advice.

“Being able to remain anonymous would make a big difference to employees’ thinking when it comes to speaking out, while a lot of people said they would blow the whistle if they would be protected.

“Our research shows most people don’t know that there are laws in place to protect whistleblowers – 63pc.”

Elderly people put at risk as watchdog fails to act on warnings of ‘fatally negligent’ care homes

The Independent     2 September 2015
  Exclusive: Reports fail to trigger inspections by the Care Quality Commission

The lives of vulnerable care home residents were put at risk because England’s healthcare regulator failed to act promptly on official warnings about fatally negligent standards, an investigation for The Independent reveals.

Coroners’ courts have identified more than 20 deaths of care home residents in the past two years that could happen again without changes in practice.

Yet in more than half of these cases, research by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has found, these reports failed to trigger inspections by the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

The commission has admitted its response to the warnings had “not always been consistent” and was working to improve the situation.

But charities working in the sector claimed that the regulator “loses vital information in its systems all the time”.

CASE STUDY: ‘SHE WAS SHOUTING WITH PAIN AND SAID SHE WANTED TO DIE’

David Behan, chief executive of the CQC, said: “I am not going to defend the indefensible. We have got more to do.”

The investigation by the bureau examined 23 cases where an individual had died unexpectedly in a care home since July 2013.

In every case an inquest was held and the coroner went on to advise a care home or agency in England to take action to prevent another death from occurring.

But in nine of the cases, the homes and agencies involved were last inspected by the CQC before the deaths occurred up to two years ago. In a further two cases the homes were not inspected until long after the deaths, and six months after the coroner’s report.

Chlamydia vaccine

In another case, the CQC inspected the home in the two months between the unexpected death in September 2014 and the coroner completing a formal report in November.

The CQC did not mention the recent death in its review and there is nothing in its findings to show that inspectors had checked whether issues subsequently raised by the coroner had been addressed. The inspectors have not returned to the home following the coroner’s report.

The bureau found four further cases where the homes were inspected within a few months of the coroner’s report. But in none of these cases did the CQC reports mention either the inquest or whether the inspection had checked to see if the coroner’s concerns had been addressed.

In the remaining seven cases, providers had been inspected promptly after the coroners’ warnings and it is clear in the CQC reports that the issues raised had been looked into.

READ MORE:
SOCIAL CARE REGULATORS RECEIVING 150 ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE
80S CHART-TOPPERS BLAZING A TRAIL ACROSS CARE HOMES
COMMENT: LOW PAY FOR CARE WORKERS ENDANGERS THE OLD AND INFIRM
MIHOMECARE: ONE OF UK’S BIGGEST CARE AGENCIES BEING SUED

The CQC is not obliged to inspect in every case, but has a range of options in responding to a coroner’s warning notice, such as reviewing any proposed action plans from the care home in question, meeting with them to discuss action taken, and agreeing action with others, such as local safeguarding teams.

In one case, a coroner found nursing home staff had failed to recognise that an elderly lady was “acutely unwell” because they were not properly trained.

After she died in August 2013, the home also failed to investigate properly and wrongly told the CQC that internal protocols had been correctly followed when they had not been, according to the coroner’s formal report.

After the inquest, the coroner produced an official document in January 2014 , known as an “action to prevent future deaths” report – a process introduced in July 2013 – which was sent to the CQC.

The home has not been inspected since. It was last inspected in May 2013, when it received a positive score on all counts, including for staff training.

The bureau’s findings raise disturbing questions about how the CQC prioritises inspections and acts on information it receives.

Eileen Chubb, the founder of campaigning charity Compassion in Care, said: “In our experience, the CQC loses vital information in its systems all the time.

“We get a huge amount of information coming in that needs acting on immediately and we are a small organisation with a tiny budget. The CQC does not seem to be capable of dealing with all the intelligence it receives.”

Judy Downey, the chair of the Relatives and Residents Association, which supports care home residents and their families, said: “The lack of rigorous follow-up and appropriate enforcement action by the CQC in relation to incidents and unexpected deaths, even where prosecutions have taken place, continues to be a huge cause for concern.”

Mr Behan said that since the cases had arisen the commission had undertaken a review of its procedures and was now working with coroners to ensure that all warnings were promptly acted upon and came to one central point in the organisation.

“We are not pretending we have got this cracked. We are radically changing the way in which we regulate health and social care in this country. Have we finished that task? No we haven’t. We have got more to do. We absolutely understand this issue.

“We understand this is about people, and people having the confidence and trust that they will be kept safe in the care that they receive, and we’ve got more to do.”

Duty under the law

Coroners have a duty under law to make reports to organisations including the CQC – as well as local authorities, government departments or agencies – when they believe that action should be taken to prevent future deaths. All reports and any responses are also sent to the Chief Coroner, and they are published on Judiciary Service’s website.

 

CQC response to story in The Independent

Published:
3 September 2015

A story has been published in The Independent today (Thursday 3 September) focussing on CQC’s response to Regulation 28 reports, which are issued by the Coroner and aimed at preventing future deaths.

The story focusses on a number cases (between 2013 and 2015) where someone died – either in a care home or following care or treatment at home – where the Coroner concluded that further action needed to be taken to prevent a future death in similar circumstances from occurring.

Our Chief Executive, David Behan, gave an interview to The Independent to explain how CQC has improved the processes we have to in place to ensure that we respond to and learn from the issues highlighted by these Regulation 28 reports.  

CQC’s Chief Executive, David Behan, said:.

“When someone dies while being cared for in a health or social care setting and the Coroner concludes that action is needed to prevent future deaths from occurring, a Regulation 28 report is issued. In most cases, the provider will be the named respondent, meaning that they have responsibility for preventing a future death in similar circumstances.

“In some cases, however, CQC is the named respondent, meaning that the Coroner has concluded that the regulator also has a role to play in ensuring that people are protected in the future.

“In those cases where CQC is identified as the named respondent, it is absolutely right that we should expect CQC to use this information to inform our regulatory activities. This includes how we respond to levels of risk as well as ensuring providers act on the recommendations of Coroner’s Reports.

“Last year, I initiated a review of our processes and procedures, as I had recognised that we were not always receiving these Reports. In some cases where we did, it was also clear we were not always dealing with these effectively enough.

“We have made a number of changes to strengthen and tighten our ways of working, including:

  • Establishing a single point of contact for Coroners’ reports to ensure any concerns raised are effectively logged, analysed, managed and reviewed.
  • Better and earlier engagement with Coroners around the time of a person’s death.
  • A proposed and drafted Memorandum of Understanding with the Coroners’ Society to strengthen our working relationships and ensure we receive all Coroners’ reports in health and social care inquests in order to help reduce risk more effectively and promptly.

“We’ve made progress, but I’m far from being complacent. We know there is more work to do. Improvement is a continual commitment and we are making sure we are properly embedding our new process, further developing our relationship with the Coroners’ Society and being really clear about what we expect our staff to do when they receive these types of reports.

“But this isn’t just about processes – it’s about people’s lives.  For that reason, we need to keep working hard to ensure that we get it right every time.”