Staff at hospital in whistleblower scandal were ‘coached in how to fool inspectors’

A report has downgraded West Suffolk Hospital to ‘requires improvement’
A report has downgraded West Suffolk Hospital to ‘requires improvement’
JOHN FIELDING

Executives at the local hospital of the health secretary, Matt Hancock, allegedly arranged a roleplay session in which staff members were tutored in ways to steer health regulators away from potential whistleblowers during last year’s inspection.

A senior clinician at West Suffolk Hospital in Bury St Edmunds has claimed managers were so desperate to keep its “outstanding” status that measures were put in place to minimise dissenting voices during the annual inspection by the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

The clinician, who has asked not to be named for fear of reprisals, says there were serious issues that needed to be raised with the inspectors.

The doctor described incidents in which chronic understaffing had resulted in critically ill elderly patients being left malnourished and crying out in pain while lying in soiled beds.

A number of doctors have also claimed that a “bullying” management culture has led to staff being too afraid to speak up about patient safety concerns inside the hospital, which serves Hancock’s constituents.

Insight revealed two weeks ago that one of the hospital’s most senior consultants, Dr Patricia Mills, had been placed under disciplinary investigation after she voiced concerns about blunders that killed one patient and left another seriously brain-damaged.

The hospital held a management training day last summer after it was made aware that it was going to be inspected by the CQC during late September and early October.

According to the source, two senior managers played the role of CQC inspectors in one session during the training day. “It was about how you can remove whistleblowers from the equation,” said the source.

The awkward staff identified were those who had previously “gone on about having a terrible day, hating the job or ‘This place is awful’”, the source said.

“We were shown how to greet the inspector straight away at the door and take them to someone who would willingly talk to them about all the good stuff while we whipped round sending difficult people on a break.”

In addition, the source said: “Nursing rotas were examined two weeks before the visit, and for people they knew would be trouble it was suggested rotas would be altered to make sure they were not on shift that day.”

The source said staff were terrified about raising concerns with the inspectors for fear they would lose their jobs. Some, however, did seek them out to describe an alleged climate of intimidation and bullying at executive level.

The conversations are reflected in last month’s CQC report, which noted: “Some staff told us that they felt that the executive team were so focused on maintaining outstanding status this impacted on the response received when concerns were raised and they ‘only wanted to hear the good’.”

The report downgraded the hospital to “requires improvement”. It criticised the executive leadership for not fostering an “open and empowering culture” and expressed specific concerns about the way it treated whistleblowers.

It also found that safety concerns were not identified or addressed quickly enough.

The report did not note staff or food shortages at the time of the inspection. But the source said it was these sorts of problems on the wards that the hospital had been seeking to hide from the inspectors.

Last week Heidi Smoult, the CQC’s deputy chief inspector for hospitals, said the inspection team had spoken to 200 staff members, including whistleblowers, and had not been aware of any hospital efforts to prevent inspectors from talking to clinicians.

She added that the CQC’s report found “staff did not always feel respected, supported and valued, or able to raise concerns without fear of retribution”.

The hospital said: “Our services have enough staff to care for patients and we have more nurses than ever before.”

 

View original article 

NHS to pay £870,000 to whistleblower doctor who spoke out on patient safety

Evening Standard   RACHAEL BURFORD    11 March 2020

Seven-year fight: Dr Kevin Beatt said he lost his career to highlight dangerous practicesSeven-year fight: Dr Kevin Beatt said he lost his career to highlight dangerous practices ( Kevin Beatt/@drbeatt )

London NHS trust has been ordered to pay a leading heart doctor more than £870,000 after he was sacked for whistleblowing about safety concerns following a patient’s death.

Dr Kevin Beatt, one of the UK’s most respected consultant cardiologists, was fired from Croydon Health Services in 2012 after reporting staff shortages, inadequate equipment and workplace bullying at the trust.

He was awarded £870,740 by a tribunal on Monday following a seven-year legal battle with his former employer.

The tribunal heard Dr Beatt’s dismissal “had a devastating effect on his career and his wellbeing”.

He told the Standard: “I was forced into a position where I lost my career for trying to highlight dangerous practices in the NHS. It has taken seven years to get to this point, which is just appalling.

“It has been a huge ordeal and I have the greatest sympathy for any whistleblower who has to go through something like this.”

Dr Beatt was considered a leader in his field after his research into alternatives to open heart surgery but was refused several roles at other hospitals after his sacking, the tribunal heard.

He was employed at the Croydon trust in 2005 and set up Croydon University Hospital’s cardiac interventional service, which “saved money and resulted in significantly improved outcomes for patients”.

However, he was dismissed after speaking out at a 2011 inquest into the death of a 63-year-old patient who suffered cardiac arrest amid complications during an operation.

Dr Beatt said he was unaware trust bosses had suspended his most senior nurse hours before the surgery and left him without a member of staff with a basic understanding of the procedure for 20 minutes.

During the inquest he described the nurse’s removal as the “most overtly reckless act” he had seen in his career.

Dr Beatt also flagged concerns with directors about inadequate equipment, bullying, nursing shortages and a failure to properly investigate serious incidents.

He was not given protected status as a whistleblower and was instead fired for what the trust claimed was “unsubstantiated and unproven allegations of an unsafe service” amounting to gross misconduct.

A 2014 employment tribunal ruled that the consultant cardiologist was unfairly dismissed and there was no evidence of wrongdoing on his part.

The trust’s appeal against the ruling was upheld in 2015, but a Court of Appeal judge overturned that decision two years later. A further hearing, which finished in January, was held to determine Dr Beatt’s compensation.

He said it was “reckless” for the trust to continue to pursue the case after the original tribunal and he was only able to fight the court battles because legal firm Linklaters agreed to work pro bono.

“My legal fees would have run up to almost a million pounds,” he said.

A spokesman for Croydon Health Services said: “This has been a very complex case that we felt necessary to pursue to protect confidence in our services and staff.

“We strive to ensure our staff feel supported to raise concerns and we continue to foster a culture of openness.

“We have also appointed a team of designated ‘Speak Up Guardians’, including a doctor, nurse, therapist and manager, allowing all of our staff to share their views.”

 

View original article

Whistleblower nurse with spotless 38-year record was unfairly sacked after warning that crippling NHS staff workload had led to patient’s death, tribunal rules

  • Linda Fairhall claimed NHS nurses were under an unfair strain due to new duties 
  • She said concerns were vindicated following the ‘preventable’ death of a patient
  • After returning from a holiday, she was sacked over concerns at her ‘leadership’
  • Employment tribunal ruled she was unfairly dismissed and NHS faces a pay out

Linda Fairhall, an NHS nurse since 1979, claimed district nurses were being put under an unfair strain due to new duties placed upon them in 2013Linda Fairhall, an NHS nurse since 1979, claimed that district nurses were put under an unfair strain due to new duties place upon them since 2013  

A nurse with a spotless 38-year record was unfairly sacked after warning that the crippling workload on NHS staff had led to a patient’s death, a tribunal has ruled.

Linda Fairhall, an NHS nurse since 1979, claimed district nurses were being put under an unfair strain due to new duties placed upon them in 2013.

She warned that asking the nurses to monitor patient prescriptions on top of their existing duties placed them under unfair strain and risked patients’ lives.

Mrs Fairhall claimed her concerns were vindicated following the ‘preventable’ death of a patient in October 2016.

She began the whistleblowing process but discovered on her return to work from leave that she had been sacked for concerns about her leadership capabilities.

However a report by the Care Quality Commission had commended Mrs Fairhall for her leadership qualities the previous year.

An employment tribunal today ruled she was unfairly dismissed after 38 years service with North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Trust.

A remedies hearing in July will consider how much compensation she should be paid.

From 2008, senior nurse Mrs Fairhall was employed as a clinical care co-ordinator for the Stockton region and then transferred to Hartlepool in June 2013.

Later that year she raised concerns over the then-new requirement for district nurses to monitor patients’ prescriptions.

She said it meant a sudden increase of around 1,000 extra visits a month for the service with no extra resources available.

Over the next 10 months, she reported 13 instances where she claimed the health or safety of patients and staff was being or was likely to be put at risk.

Ms Fairhall, who oversaw a team of around 50 district nurses, was concerned about their workload, employee stress and sickness, as well as risk to patients.

The death of a patient in 2016 prompted a meeting where Mrs Fairhall expressed the view that it may have been prevented if any of the 13 cases she had reported had been listened to.

From 2008, senior nurse Mrs Fairhall was employed as a clinical care co-ordinator for the Stockton region and then transferred to Hartlepool (pictured) in June 2013

 

Later the same month, she told the trust’s care group director Julie Parks that she wished to instigate the formal whistle-blowing procedure before going on annual leave.

But, on her return to work on October 31, she was told she had been suspended over allegations of potential gross misconduct relating to her leadership.

She remained suspended for 18 months and during this period she also battled her own personal tragedies, the hearing was told.

She was still recovering from breast cancer treatment, her teenage son was also unwell and eight months into the suspension, her partner died from a heart attack.

After various investigations and appeals, Mrs Fairhall was dismissed in April 2018.

The employment tribunal found the trust’s investigation into her alleged misconduct to be ‘inadequate and unreasonable in all the circumstances of the case’.

The judgment said: ‘Witnesses referred to little more than “themes” or “perceptions” by the staff, none of which contained a level of detail which would have enabled Mrs Fairhall to respond.

‘The tribunal found that no reasonable employer, in all circumstances of the case, would have conducted the investigation in this manner.’

The tribunal also criticised the trust for not giving a ‘meaningful or adequate’ explanation of why the suspension lasted 18 months.

It said it was an ‘inordinate and unreasonable length of time for an employee of the claimant’s superiority and length of service to be suspended’.

The judgment added: ‘The trust’s decision to dismiss the claimant fell outside the range of reasonable responses open to an employer in all circumstances of the case.

‘This was an employee of 38 years unblemished service who was suspended from her role in circumstances where that suspension was unjustified and unreasonable.

‘The trust has failed to establish that she committed any act of misconduct which could justify dismissal.’

Mrs Fairhall said she was ‘absolutely devastated’ by the effect it has had on her life.

She said: ‘I have been utterly humiliated, my life has been left in chaos and my professional integrity has been questioned leaving my reputation irreparably damaged.

‘I am devastated that after almost 40 years in a career I have been passionate about, and working in an organisation that I have always been proud to be part of, that I am left in this situation.

‘As a result of the impact on my physical and mental health it has been necessary to allow my professional registration to lapse and come to terms and grieve for the loss of my career.

‘I will no longer be working as a nurse due to the fear of being able to escalate concerns.

‘I would therefore deem myself as being unable to adhere to my professional code of conduct and potentially place patient care at risk.’

A spokesman for North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Trust said: ‘We acknowledge the ruling and intend to appeal the decision.’

Thrive Law, which represented Ms Fairhall, said the impact on their client was ‘profound’.

‘She no longer is able to work and has lost her career as a nurse,’ said a spokesperson.

‘This all arose from her trying to protect patient and staff safety and reporting genuine concerns she had.’

View original article on mail on line