Protection of NHS whistleblowers and NHS quality improvement – two birds killed with one stone

 
A very disappointing and arguably flawed `Freedom to Speak Up Review Report’ by Sir Robert Francis published in February 2015. A flawed document because all the basic steps of problem solving are not evident in the report.  Also, properly to analyse the problem and establish a solution requires a good understanding of industrial psychology, organisational behaviour and the power of conformity, how world class quality standards are achieved and how to create the organisation culture needed to achieve it. 
 
Step 1. What is the problem? The Report recognises that the protection of whistleblowers is a problem but fails to recognise the important problem of sacked whistleblowers, who are now unable to obtain redress for wrongful dismissal or redeployment in the NHS – the rectification of this essential if the Report recommendations are to have any credibility?  It also fails to recognise that the NHS is generally incapable of effectively rectifying failures in the quality of its services identified by whistleblowers/employees and for that matter its customers. Step 2. What is the cause of the problem?  The cause of whistleblowing is not effectively identified or analysed at all.   Step 3. What action should be taken to deal with the cause of the problem?  The Report provides a list of 20 `Principles and Actions’ as to how providers of NHS healthcare and regulators should behave and recommends yet another policing body to try to enforce it, which cannot be effective because it does not address the cause of the problem.   Step 2 ‘what is the cause of the problem’ is missing in the report i.e. what is causing people to bully others and repress free speech? As a result, Step 3 in the report does not address Step 2 and thereby resolve Step 1.
 
The main cause of the whistleblowing problem is reasonably clear.  The NHS is managed like a totalitarian state i.e. a very hierarchical command and control (C&C) dominated dictatorship using, target setting, regulation, inspection, intimidation (naming and blaming) at every level in an effort to improve productivity and quality to meet the needs and demands of customers.  It is a seriously outdated divide and rule, parent – child, them and us organisation and management system which creates fear in the workforce and is reminiscent of the UK car industry of the 1970s, which similarly failed competitively to improve its productivity and quality of products and services to meet customer need. Whistleblowing is only defined as such in centralised totalitarian/dictatorial command and control dominated management regimes. Free speech (and particularly the truth) is the biggest threat to dictatorship, which it has to suppress to survive.  Anyone who does not agree with its commands and practices is considered to be against the regime.  In such moribund cultures, which also breed informers, the vast majority of managers and staff do as they are told, avoid responsibility and keep their heads down for fear of losing their job or destroying their chance of promotion.  Indeed, the only way for people to gain promotion is to conform to meet the demands of their paymaster whoever they may be. All such regimes over a period of time fail to adapt to rapid change and inevitably corrupt and divide themselves into a protectionist profession silo mentality resulting in a pass the parcel service. 
 
Sir Robert recommends appointing yet another formal policing/inspection type system of an Independent National Officer and Freedom to Speak Up Guardians both of which are responsible to the totalitarian organisation and management system causing the present culture of fear and bullying. Behaviour change in the workplace cannot be achieved by regulation and inspection anymore than you can make people like each other.  Also, telling people how they should behave will not result in their behaviour changing. People’s overall behaviour in an organisation is substantially determined by four things:  1) its purpose; 2) its organisational paradigm i.e. the way it is organised and managed; 3) the knowledge and skills of its employees and 4) financial resources.  2) the NHS organisational paradigm is a key factor related to the problem, although the lack of a clearly defined purpose, financial resources to meet customer demand and the serious lack of knowledge of quality management methodology throughout the organisation is also contributing to the problem.
 
As a democracy, founded on the principle of no taxation without representation we, as owners of the NHS, should all be deeply concerned at the way the NHS is organised and managed.  Democratic, creative and progressive societies and organisations, where command and control management influence is minimal, are dependent for their existence upon everyone at every level being empowered to speak up to contribute to the process of continuous improvement of that society or organisation. A free press is essential and everyone is a whistleblower in an open democratic `stop the line (to use a process manufacturing analogy) continuous improvement organisational culture.  High quality services in complex industries like the NHS cannot be achieved in organisations operating a closed totalitarian C&C management dominated regime, which is designed to control social behaviour by subordinating and disempowering people – the exact opposite of what is required.  Thus the only protection a whistleblower in the NHS can be given is radically to dismantle and reform the present management regime of the NHS.  In turn this will radically improve productivity and the quality of services. Dismantling the regime will involve breaking it up into smaller autonomous units, creating an adult to adult management culture and training and involving everyone in the business planning and quality improvement and control process. There are only two ways to break the organisation into smaller units.   One is to privatise it, the other is to democratise it.  One of the problems with the privatisation of front line services is that it will fragment the services and thus militate against developing integrated services which is so desperately needed in the NHS, although the private sector may more effectively provide some supplier services.  Also, privatisation/marketisation and thereby competition does not ensure the development of high quality services. The car industry in the UK has always been highly competitive, but cost effective high quality car production was only achieved when total quality management methods, involving all staff, were introduced into the production process.  
 
It should be recognised that the Department of Health/NHS is by no means the only organisation involved in providing health and wellbeing services. The vast majority of existing local government services were created to prevent ill health through poor living conditions and to encourage individuals to maintain good health and wellbeing.  Public health, environmental health, refuse collection, leisure and recreation (re-creation), housing, social services and town planning services were all created for this purpose. In the case of mental health and the physical health of older people, which take up a sizeable part of the budget of the NHS, the importance of many of these services working together in harmony with health services to provide a whole person service cannot be underestimated.  Thus the democratisation of the NHS has to be the way forward and in doing so change the way it is organised and managed by creating district/neighbourhood multi disciplined and skilled health and care teams to work with clusters of GPs to provide an integrated service and empower staff by training everyone in quality improvement methodology. At present, circa £100bn is being spent by NHS civil servants, managers, clinicians and other professionals (represented by institutes/unions) with no accountability for their performance or the spending of public money to the local electorate. By devolving the commissioning and management of NHS services to the city/district level based upon the model used by local authorities, top health managers and clinicians would be directly appointed by elected representatives of the whole community to whom they would also be accountable for the design and delivery of services and the spending of public money.   It will also resolve the problem of whistleblowing. Whistleblowing is not a term that has been used in local government, where any attempt to suppress free speech of managers and staff (who are obliged to serve the whole council) by the political party in power would be seized upon by opposition political parties likely in the council chamber itself or through the free press.   
 
Arguably the Government/Department of Health/NHSE should concern itself only with developing overall NHS policy with regard to national health outcome standards, financial resource allocation and managing specialist services, which are not economically viable to be provided at the local level.  Otherwise, the local provision of NHS services should be delegated to the local community level, which arguably if placed under one health and care provider management umbrella would better enable the integrated management of all services related to the prevention of and recovery from ill health and the maintenance of good health and wellbeing.  It would also enable the creation of a more customer focussed service that can work in partnership with families and individuals at the district/ neighbourhood level better to identify customer need and encourage them to take more responsibility for managing their own health and wellbeing along with the development of the public services they own.   Increasingly the electorate are losing trust and confidence in the ability of national politicians and thereby national Government to manage public services to meet people’s needs. The time has now come to devolve much of the commissioning and management of the NHS to the local community level in the manner described above. In this process two birds will be killed by one stone – protection for whistleblowers and the creation of a high quality customer driven fully integrated health, wellbeing and social care service. 
 
John L Green MSc, NHS trust governor        Sir Brian Jarman, Emeritus Professor, Imperial College, London                                                                  johnlewis,green@virgin.net.                                                                                            \W&Q-4          Copyright © 2015
 

Statement – Barts and Charlotte Monroe

31 March 2015  A joint statement

Barts Health NHS Trust is pleased to confirm that it has invited Charlotte Monro to return to employment at Whipps Cross Hospital and that Charlotte has accepted the Trust’s invitation.

Charlotte will be returning in the very near future, working three days a week as a moving and handling co-ordinator, following a period of re-training.

The Trust and Charlotte have also reached confidential terms of agreement in respect of her Employment Tribunal claim. The Trust has valued the discussion of issues during the Employment Tribunal process. Charlotte deeply appreciates the thorough exploration of the issues in an objective light that the Tribunal has enabled. The Trust confirms that, as part of Charlotte’s return, it will for all purposes in the future, be removing reference from Charlotte’s employment record with the Trust, the disciplinary matters which were the subject of an internal process against Charlotte and which were then reviewed by the Employment Tribunal. This will allow Charlotte and the Trust to move forward fully, from what we acknowledge has been a difficult process for all concerned, above all for Charlotte herself.

Following the recent publication of the Care Quality Commission inspection report into Whipps Cross Hospital, an Improvement Board has been put in place to address all the concerns raised by the CQC. Charlotte Monro is an energetic and committed campaigner on patient care issues in the NHS, and the Trust welcomes the contribution which Charlotte will undoubtedly be able to make to the discussion about ensuring Whipps Cross’s future. Members of the Trust’s Executive will be meeting with Charlotte, Unison Regional Officer Derek Helyar, Chair of Staff Side at Whipps Cross, Valerie Phillips and Chair of the Staff Partnership Forum, Mireille Braid, in the near future, for an open and frank discussion about lessons to be learnt and Charlotte’s future contribution.

The Trust values Charlotte’s long professional contribution over many years to standards of patient care and to patient and staff safety.

Barts Health NHS Trust                                                            Charlotte Monro

Bristol MP ‘determined upholder of NHS values of care free at the point of delivery’ – clinicians

By BrisNWNews  |  Posted: March 23, 2015
photo-1web

Charlotte Leslie with her NHS surgeon father Ian

Charlotte Leslie is a ‘determined upholder of the NHS values of care free at the point of delivery and need – not only for now, but for generations to come’.That’s the view of a group of NHS surgeons, professors and whistleblowers who put their careers on the line to keep the NHS free and safe both now and in the future. They include Professor Steve Bolsin, the anaesthetist who brought the Bristol baby heart surgery death rates into the public arena, leading to vastly reduced mortality at the Bristol Royal Infirmary as well as the implementation of clinical governance reforms in the UK. In the letter, the group say that Bristol North West MP Ms Leslie, who sits on the Health Select Committee, has been a steadfast supporter of work done to make sure NHS staff will never again have their careers put at risk because they highlighted poor practices which undermined patient safety.

 The letter says: “We write as a group of NHS campaigners for transparency, most of us whistleblowers, who have seen the worst of the NHS. 

 “Whistleblowers have suffered for the sake of protecting the interests of patients. 

 “Many of us have been through years of painful turmoil as a result of speaking up. 

 ” In such a journey, there are often few dependable friends.One of the few exceptions to this has been Charlotte Leslie MP, a woman of great decency, capability and refreshing honesty. NHS whistleblowers and cam-paigners are much indebted to her for all the support and advocacy that she has provided over the years. 

 “Without such stalwart help, the plight of NHS whistleblowers would not be as well known or understood. Ms Leslie’s abundant common sense and sense of fair play is very precious in public life, and shines through in her work on the Health Select Committee. 

 “Her support of the NHS is clear.”We know she is a determined upholder of the NHS values of care free at the point of delivery and need – not only for now, but for generations to come – and that she works hard for an NHS in which the interests of patients must be paramount.

 “Bristol is very lucky to have such a committed public servant.”
 
 Ms Leslie said: “I am humbled to have received this letter of support. As a politician, I have pas-sionately tried to ensure that we make the right decisions which will preserve a safe and free NHS for generations to come. 

 “Sadly, some opponents have decided to use the NHS for short term political gain when what we need is a mature debate to explore how this magnificent institution can flourish in the future.
 
 “At a time when I have been so misrepresented and attacked for trying to do the right thing for the NHS, it is heartening to hear that those at the sharp end in the health profession – some of whom have sacrificed their careers to preserve a quality NHS – have come out as a strong voice to say that our NHS is too important to become party political football.”

 The signatories to the letter are:
 Sir Brian Jarman, Emeritus Professor Imperial College Faculty of Medicine
 Professor Steve Bolsin Consultant Anaesthetist and whistleblower
 Gary Walker Former NHS CEO and whistleblower
 Professor Narinder Kapur Consultant Neuropsychologist and whistleblower
 Sharmila Chowdhury Former NHS Imaging Services Manager and whistleblower
 Dr Kevin Beatt Former NHS Consultant Cardiologist and whistleblower
 Lady Maha Yassaie Former NHS Chief Pharmacist for West Berkshire and whistle-blower
 Dr David Drew Former NHS Consultant Paediatrician and whistleblower
 Fiona Bell NHS whistleblower and complainant
 Dr Minh Alexander Former NHS Consultant Psychiatrist and whistleblower

 

 

Labour to create NHS staff champions to protect stressed-out nurses and give an ear to whistleblowers

The Mirror  21 March 2015   By
A new independent body to help NHS workers deal with stress and ensure patient safety is on the cards. Shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham reveals all to Sunday People political editor Nigel Nelson

Matt Sprake PhotographyShadow Health Secretary, Labour MP the Rt Hon Andy Burnham
Labour’s Andy Burnham

Labour is to create a new independent NHS body to protect health workers if it wins the General Election.

They will be known as NHS staff champions and be the first port of call for whistleblowers who believe patient safety is at risk.

They will also deal with allegations of bullying or intimidation by hospital managers and senior doctors.

The move by shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham comes as new figures show nurses are now under so much pressure two in five are suffering stress.

The NHS staff survey revealed that 41% of hospital nurses and midwives are overwhelmed by their workload – a 27% increase since 2010.

And half said the ward they work on is now dangerously understaffed.

GettyNurse comforting patient in hospital bed
Nurse at work: two in five suffer stress

NHS champions will help to cut work-related stress and absence through sickness.

They will also tackle aggressive behaviour by the public which affects a third of NHS workers.

And police will get powers to issue on-the-spot fines for physical or verbal abuse of NHS staff by patients or their relatives.

Mr Burnham told the Sunday People in an exclusive interview: “We don’t care enough for the people who care for us.

“I’m going to have a big job rebuilding the morale of a shattered workforce. They’ve been ground down over the last five years.”

Julian Hamilton / Daily MirrorAndy Burnham
Burnham: NHS staff deserve our care

He will recruit 20,000 more nurses to ease the pressure paid for by a Mansion Tax on homes worth more than £2million.

Although the champions will work within the NHS they will have the same independence as the Chief Medical Officer does now.

One in seven medical staff report they have been victims of violence in the previous 12 months.

The NHS loses £1.6billion a year through sickness and it costs even more to pay agency workers up to £1,000 a weekend to replace them.

Mr Burnham added: “Hospital workers say they feel like they’re in a tunnel with no light at the end.

“They feel under the cosh, demoralised and exhausted. My first priority will be to give them a lift.”

Eight in ten NHS staff believe their own wellbeing is key to patient care. Yet they feel neglected by Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt.

PAJeremy Hunt
Hunt: neglect

And hospitals with high rates of patient deaths also record more sickness absence.

Labour will also hire 8,000 more GPs to ease pressure on local surgeries.

Six in ten family doctors say it is now so bad they are thinking of taking early retirement.

NHS ‘whistleblower’ demands apology and comparable job

Adam Brimelow
Gary Walker

Related Stories

A former NHS boss who says he was sacked for raising patient safety concerns has asked the health secretary for an apology and a “comparable” job.

In a letter to Jeremy Hunt, ex-United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust boss Gary Walker argues he is a whistleblower whose actions have been vindicated.

But he says he has been blacklisted from working for the health service.

The Department of Health in England says it will be looking carefully at the issues raised in the letter.

“Start Quote

I continue to be blacklisted by the NHS despite a high achieving career prior to raising concerns about patient safety”

Gary WalkerLetter to Health Secretary

Gary Walker’s letter says that, as chief executive of United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust, he warned senior health officials that patients would come to harm if it was forced to comply with NHS targets.

The letter sets out, point-by-point, why he believes he is a whistleblower, and how – in his view – this led to his dismissal and being blacklisted by the NHS.

He goes on to argue that his actions were vindicated by events, as evidence grew of rising death rates and a high number of safety incidents, but says he was “gagged” by a compromise agreement, which he broke two years ago.

Mr Walker cites recent reports that looked into whistleblowing from the health select committee of MPs and Sir Robert Francis QC as supporting his call for an apology and “practical redress”.

He writes: “The practical redress you offer will need to be individual to those who raised concerns and the harm they suffered but I would expect that whistle-blowers simply want an apology and a job that is comparable to the one they were forced from.”

‘High-achiever’

The letter is copied to the chief executive of NHS England, Simon Stevens, and shadow health secretary Andy Burnham.

It also includes a full CV which, he says represents a “highly successful career” which was ended as a result of raising concerns about patient safety and misconduct.

He says: “I continue to be blacklisted by the NHS despite a high-achieving career prior to raising concerns about patient safety.”

In response to the letter, a department of health spokesperson, said: “We want to make the NHS the safest health system in the world and creating an open and honest culture where patients and staff are listened to is vital to improving care.

“This government has made important changes to protect whistle-blowers by outlawing gagging clauses in contracts and introducing new laws in this parliament to protect those who speak up.”

The department says every NHS manager and leader is to have training on how to raise concerns.

Liverpool NHS boss who presided over ‘bullying’ and ‘blame’ culture lands new job

Liverpool Echo  6 March 201   By Joshua Taylor

Bernie Cuthel begins five-month secondment to health board in Wales

Bernie Cuthel, former chief executive of the Liverpool Community Health Trust NHS Trust
Bernie Cuthel, former chief executive of the Liverpool Community Health Trust NHS Trust

 

An NHS boss who resigned after a culture of “bullying” and “blame” was exposed at a Liverpool health trust has landed a new senior job in north Wales.

Bernie Cuthel stepped down as chief executive of Liverpool Community Health NHS Trust after it was slammed by regulators last year.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) issued the organisation with two warnings in January 2014 for failing to meet national welfare targets – and revealed staff on a trust-run ward at Fazakerley hospital had raised concerns over “bullying” managers and a “blame culture” that made them afraid to report incidents.

Since stepping down last April, Ms Cuthel got a new job at Manchester Mental Health and Social Care NHS Trust – and this week began a five-month secondment to the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board (BCUHB) in Bangor.

She will work as the board’s interim director of primary, community and mental health services.

West Lancashire MP Rosie Cooper, who previously asked questions in Parliament about Ms Cuthel’s time in Liverpool, slammed the BCUHB’s decision to hire her.

The Labour politician said: “There’s a serious gap in accountability when senior executives and boards preside over a culture of bullying and intimidation.

“In the light of my investigations into the Liverpool Community Health NHS Trust, I have referred Bernie Cuthel to the CQC to ask them whether she is a fit and proper person to be involved in another NHS organisation.

“We are nowhere near the end of the investigations and litigation which will come out of the Liverpool Community Health NHS Trust.”

The CQC’s inquiry last year said staff at the Liverpool trust claimed their managers were “intimidating”, “unresponsive” and “bullying”.

A number of employees said they would not report concerns to the management team for fear of reprisals and recrimination.

Ms Cuthel stepped down in April along with the Liverpool Community Health NHS Trust’s director of nursing and human resources director.

A BCUHB spokesman said: “We advertised a secondment opportunity on the NHS Jobs website.

“Ms Cuthel applied in open competition and was deemed to be the best candidate at interview.

“Pre-employment checks, including taking up two references from her current and former employers, were completed.

“A secondment agreement has been entered into with her current employer for a period of five months.”

The BCUHB added that Ms Cuthel would not make any comment personally.

Tories accused of hiding ‘totally shocking’ report into NHS management

Tories accused of hiding ‘totally shocking’ report into NHS management

 Conservative peer Lord Rose conducted the report

SENIOR REPORTER

A “totally shocking” report by one of the country’s most respected businessmen into how the NHS is being run must be published before the general election, MPs have said.

A withering assessment of NHS management, by the Conservative peer Lord Stuart Rose, who is credited with turning around the fortunes of Marks & Spencer, was submitted to the Department of Health in December but has still not been published by the government.

It is understood to paint a damaging picture of a culture in which mediocre managers can move around within the NHS without being held to account, while those who are successful go unrewarded.

Lord Rose was appointed to carry out the review in February last year by Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary. At the time, the government said it hoped he would be able to advise on how the NHS could “attract and retain the very best leaders to help transform the culture in under-performing hospitals”.

But one person who has seen the report told the Financial Times that Lord Rose, who is now chairman of online supermarket Ocado, had found the overall standard of much NHS management to be “totally shocking”.

According to another source, the government’s response to the report has been put on “the back burner of the back burner”. The timing is particularly sensitive for the Tories, who have faced frequent attacks by Labour on the state of the NHS under the Coalition as the general election approaches.

MPs said that Lord Rose’s assessment must be made public immediately. Jamie Reed, Labour’s shadow Health Minister, told The Independent: “If the government has nothing to hide it should release the report before the election. Ministers cannot commission reports on the NHS and bury the ones they don’t like. When people vote in May, they need to have all the facts about this government’s mismanagement of the health service.”

Ukip leader Nigel Farage also wrote on Twitter: “Surely this will have to be published before the election so we can see [what] the establishment has done to our NHS?” A spokesperson for the Department of Health said the government would be publishing the report “in due course”.

Lord Rose, who is close to David Cameron, is among a group of corporate leaders who have publicly attacked Ed Miliband. The Tory peer recently described the Labour leader as having a “steady drum-beat of anti-business policies” which harked back to the 1970s.

‘Appalling’ treatment of NHS whistleblowers must be investigated: Staff ostracised by hospital bosses demand independent inquiry after ‘whitewash’ Francis report

  • Freedom To Speak Up Review published report revealing culture of fear
  • Sir Robert Francis sought evidence from hundreds of doctors and nurses
  • Concluded whistleblowers ‘bullied and ostracised’ for speaking up
  • Scathing letter from three high profile whistleblowers calls for inquiry
  • Say their careers have been ruined and still no action has been taken 

NHS whistleblowers are demanding an independent inquiry into their treatment by hospital managers after a long-awaited report was declared a ‘whitewash’.

In a scathing letter to the report’s author, they accused him of failing to hold any managers to account and leaving patients at risk of serious harm.

The NHS’s ‘Freedom to Speak up Review’, which was published a fortnight ago, told how whistleblowers have faced a culture of ‘fear, bullying and ostracisation’ for daring to speak out.

But whistleblowers whose careers have been ruined said still no action has been taken to address the concerns about patient safety that they have been making for years.

Despite hearing awful reports about failures and cover ups over patients’ deaths, the report’s author Sir Robert Francis has ‘ignored’ their stories, they said.

Scroll down to read the letter in full  

NHS whistleblower Dr David DrewNHS whistleblowers Sharmila Chowdhury

‘We expected that you would have taken action in these matters which involved patient harm, death and fraud,’ the whistleblowers have written to Sir Robert.

‘Those responsible have not been held accountable. Lessons have not been learned. Patients and their relatives have not been told the truth.

‘We consider this failure to address our concerns a serious flaw in your review.’

The letter, which has been signed by three NHS whistleblowers, added: ‘We feel that we have not been taken seriously, which has been our experience as whistleblowers all along.

‘It seems appropriate to us that you allow independent scrutiny of all the submissions so that these matters can be addressed.’

Sir Robert was commissioned last June by the Government to head the review into whistleblowing in the NHS.

He previously led two inquiries into the scandal at Mid Staffordshire hospital, where 1,200 patients died needlessly.

Some 600 NHS staff spoke to the barrister and his team, who were also overwhelmed by 19,800 responses from other employees to an online survey.

Sir Robert reported that whistleblowers are too often derided as ‘snitches, troublemakers and backstabbers’.

He said many had, in effect, been blacklisted by the NHS, facing being ‘victimised’ by managers, forced out of their jobs and unable to find other work.

The barrister made 20 recommendations – including a ‘whistleblowing guardian’ at each hospital – which the Government has promised to enforce in an attempt to change the culture of silence in the health service.

NHS whistleblowers, however, have since confronted him, outlining their ‘serious concerns’ that his report has failed to address any of the specific concerns made by NHS staff about the alarming treatment of patients.

The letter has been signed by three high profile whistleblowers, including Dr David Drew, a top paediatrician who was sacked after claiming he had witnessed a cover up over a child’s death.

It has also been signed by Sharmila Chowdhury, a senior radiography manager who spoke out about a £250,000 fraud at her Trust, and a third colleague who asked not to be named.

Dated February 23, 2015, the letter states: ‘We have now had an opportunity to digest your report and have a number of serious concerns.

‘More than 600 individuals made detailed submissions to the quantitative review.

‘We suppose that many, like us, assumed that you would take these seriously as disclosures made in the public interest and act on them. That is what you told us when we first met you.

SIR ROBERT’S KEY PRINCIPLES

The Freedom To Speak Up review set out 20 principles to bring about change in the NHS.

They include:

Culture of raising concerns – to make raising issues a part of normal routine business of any well-led NHS organisation. Sir Robert suggests that every NHS trust should have an integrated policy and common procedure for all employees to formally report incidents and raise their concerns.

Culture free from bullying – freedom of staff to speak out relies on staff being able to work in a culture which is free from bullying. The report urges all trusts to consistently show intimidation and victimisation to be unacceptable behaviour.

Training – every member of staff should receive training in their trust’s approach to raising concerns and in receiving and acting on them.

Support – all NHS trusts should ensure there is a dedicated person to whom concerns can be easily reported and without formality. They should also provide staff who raise concners with ready access to mentoring, advocacy, advice and counselling. The report suggests each hospital appoint a freedom to speak up guardian to fulfill that role.

Support to find alternative employment in the NHS – where a worker who has raised a concern cannot, as a result, continue their role, the NHS should help them seek an alternative job.

‘You have allowed situations where patients are at risk and where managers act defensively out of self-interest to continue unaddressed.

‘Amongst the other 600 plus submissions there must be, and we know there are, more examples of fraud and unresolved patient risk.’

They went on to demand that the submissions are now properly dealt with under ‘independent scrutiny’.

After the report was published, there was particular unease about a key clause which advised whistleblowers not to speak to the press, saying they should only do so as a ‘last resort’ to avoid causing ‘considerable distress’.

Dr Drew told the Mail he was publicising the whistleblowers’ letter to Sir Robert because ‘the press seems to be the only way to squeeze the truth out’.

He added: ‘History will judge Francis badly. He failed whistleblowers and offered a get out of jail free for managers. And that adds up to failing patients. The whole point was patient safety but he ignored all our reports.’

In his review, Sir Robert said: ‘What I heard during the course of the review from staff, employers, regulators and unions and others leaves me in no doubt that there’s a serious problem in the NHS.

‘Too often, honestly-expressed anxieties have met with hostility and breakdown of working relationships. Worse still, some people suffer life-changing events, they lose their jobs, their careers and even their health.

‘We heard all too frequently of jobs being lost, but also of serious psychological damage, even to the extent of suicidal depression.

‘In short, lives can be ruined by poor handling of staff who have raised concerns.’

Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt told the Commons: ‘The only way we will build an NHS with the highest standards is if the doctors and nurses who have given their lives to patient care always feel listened to when they speak out about patient care.

‘The message must go out that we are calling time on bullying, intimidation and victimisation, which have no place in our NHS.

‘We will ensure that every member of staff, NHS manager and NHS leader has proper training on how to raise concerns and how to treat people who raise concerns.’

Last night, Sir Robert Francis said: ‘I was asked by the Secretary of State to review the way concerns are handled and how those who raised them are treated.

‘I was not asked to investigate or pass judgement on the concerns themselves and made it very clear to all concerned that I was not going to do so.

‘It would be inappropriate to comment on individual contributions, as these were shared with me in confidence.’

Health secretary Jeremy Hunt  told the House of Commons he accepts the 20 principles laid out in Sir Robert's review. He said legalisation to protect whistleblowers will be fast-tracked

A Department of Health spokesman added: ‘Since Mid Staffs, there have been significant changes to make the NHS the safest and most transparent healthcare system in the world.

‘We are confident Sir Robert Francis’ recommendations will help create a more open and honest culture, and we want to change the law in this Parliament so staff feel more able to raise concerns — creating Freedom To Speak Up Guardians will also support them to do so.’

Responding the Dr Drew’s comments, a spokesman for the Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust said the issues Dr Drew raises have been addressed through two formal legal processes, ongoing since 2009.

He said: ‘In 2012 the case went to an Employment Tribunal and we are satisfied with the outcome of the case and that of the recent Employment Appeals Tribunal that dismissed Dr Drew’s claims.

‘We would like to reiterate that this case did not question Dr Drew’s skills as a paediatric consultant and on behalf of the Trust would like to say that we regret that the situation had to get to the Tribunal stage.

‘As a Trust we actively encourage and support our staff to raise an issue if they are concerned about patient care.’

Meanwhile, responding to Ms Chowdhury’s concerns, a spokesman for London North West Healthcare NHS Trust – which now includes Ealing Trust – said: ‘The Trust commissioned an independent report which was undertaken by Parkhill counter fraud services.

‘They found no evidence of wrong doing on the part of the two consultants named in the allegations.’

THE LETTER IN FULL: THREE NHS WHISTLEBLOWERS RAISE ‘SERIOUS CONCERNS’

Dear Sir Robert

Concerns about the Freedom to Speak up Review.

We are two of the whistleblowers who contributed to your Freedom to Speak up Review. We have now had an opportunity to digest your report and have a number of serious concerns. We deal with one of them in this letter.

More than 600 individuals made detailed submissions to the quantitative review. Most of these, as your report concedes, experienced victimisation after reporting concerns. In some cases you described this as ‘truly shocking’.

The concern we wish to raise with you here is about the disclosures made to you by these individuals. We suppose that many, like us, assumed that you would take these seriously as disclosures made in the public interest and act on them. That is consistent with the review procedure and what you told us when we first met you. Your report, however, makes no mention of the disclosures any of us made or what action you have taken.

Sharmila Chowdhury a senior radiography manager at Ealing NHS reported fraudulent claims by two senior consultants in excess of £250,000. She and two other whistleblowers have written to Sir Robert Francis raising concerns over his recent review of how the NHS treats staff who dare to speak out

Here are thumb-nails of the disclosures we personally made. These are serious and unresolved.

Dr David Drew: The cover-up of a hospital’s and a hospital consultant’s catastrophic failure that led to the non-accidental death of a 16-month-old boy. The hospital’s refusal despite comprehensive evidence to accept or investigate allegations of this cover-up. The failure of a Royal College of Paediatrics review panel to take evidence of this seriously and investigate.

Ms Sharmila Chowdhury: I was senior radiography manager at Ealing NHS when I reported fraudulent claims in excess of £250,000. This involved moonlighting whilst being paid by the trust, double claiming and claiming for overtimes not undertaken. I was dismissed following a false counter-allegation. I won my case at the interim relief tribunal. The large sums the trust was defrauded of have never been returned and the perpetrators and senior managers who covered this up have not been made accountable. I reasonably believe that this fraud may be continuing. 

Even these examples show that you have allowed situations where patients are at risk and where managers act defensively out of self-interest to continue unaddressed. Amongst the other 600 plus submissions there must be, and we know there are, more examples of fraud and unresolved patient risk.

Even if you considered, as you suggest in the conclusion of your report, that re-opening our cases would be too troublesome we expected that you would have taken action in these matters which involved patient harm, death and fraud. Those responsible have not been held accountable. Lessons have not been learned. Patients and their relatives have not been told the truth. We consider this failure to address our concerns a serious flaw in your review. We feel that we have not been taken seriously which has been our experience as whistle-blowers all along. It seems appropriate to us that you allow independent scrutiny of all the submissions so that these matters can be addressed.

We look forward to a speedy and comprehensive response.

Yours sincerely

Dr David Drew 

Sharmila Chowdhury

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2971737/Appalling-treatment-NHS-whistleblowers-investigated-Staff-ostracised-hospital-bosses-demand-independent-inquiry-whitewash-Francis-Report.html#ixzz3T1kz27zs
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Liverpool Women’s Hospital executive resigns amid ‘bullying’ and ‘victimisation’ claims

Liverpool Echo 18 February 2015  By Joshua Taylor
Jonathan Herod will continue working as cancer specialist
Jonathan Herod, from Liverpool Women’s Hospital

A top executive at Liverpool Women’s Hospital has resigned.

Jonathan Herod stood down as medical director this week following claims a whistle-blowing member of staff was “bullied and victimised”.

The hospital said his choice to step aside was an “entirely personal” decision.

Mr Herod will continue working at the hospital as a consultant specialising in gynaecological cancer.

But a former employee, Dr Mark Tattersall, claims Mr Herod’s resignation comes after Dr Tattersall was “dismissed” for raising “concerns regarding patient safety”.

The hospital denied this, saying Mr Herod’s choice to stand down was “in no way related” to the decision not to renew Dr Tattersall’s contract.

Dr Tattersall said: “I had been bullied and victimised by himself and other senior members of staff at the trust following my raising of concerns regarding patient safety.”

He continued: “As recently as June 2014… I believe he (Mr Herod) bullied me and made it clear that the trust operated on the basis of a strict hierarchy and that whistle-blowing continued to constitute unacceptable behaviour on the part of an employee.”

Dr Mark Tattersall, former employee at Liverpool Women’s Hospital

Dr Tattersall, now a lecturer in obstetrics and gynaecology at the University of Liverpool, claims bosses later “dismissed me by singling me out for non-renewal of my fixed-term contract”.

He added: “As a matter of principle, I will seek reinstatement to my position within the trust as I feel that this is the only way in which a message will be sent out that victimisation of whistle-blowers in the NHS is unacceptable.”

Mr Herod will be replaced as medical director, one of the hospital’s most senior positions, by Dr Joanne Topping on an interim basis until a full-time successor is appointed.

The Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust, which runs the hospital, said in a statement: “The trust can confirm that Jonathan Herod resigned from his role as medical director earlier this week.

“The reasons behind Mr Herod’s decision to resign from the position of medical director are entirely personal and are in no way related to the ending of a fixed-term contract of a former employee of the trust.”

The hospital declined to comment on the bullying claims.

Mr Herod became medical director at the Women’s in 2010, having first joined the hospital in 1999.

He introduced a pioneering cervical cancer treatment to the North West that allowed medics to preserve the child-bearing ability of women undergoing radical surgery.

Jeremy Hunt – Help & Justice for NHS whistleblowers

Sent via e-mail

 19 February 2015

 Rt Hon Mr Jeremy Hunt

Health Secretary

Dear Mr Hunt

Re: Review into NHS whistleblowing led by Sir Robert Francis QC

 

I had written to you on 30 May 2014, of my desperate case as a NHS whistle-blower (https://sharmilachowdhury.com/2014/06/03/letter-to-jeremy-hunt-2-help-justice-for-sharmila-chowdhury/)

 You subsequently after much media pressure, commissioned the review into NHS whistleblowing, led by Sir Robert Francis. Although many were sceptical about this, quite rightly as it now transpires, some of us were naively optimistic.

Although we were advised that the investigation was ‘an independent review’, on hindsight one would have to question whether Sir Robert Francis, who is a non-executive director of CQC, is really ‘independent.’

After much anticipation and delays of over three months, the report was finally published.

To my huge disappointment and those of other NHS whistleblowers, none of the essential requirements necessary to protect a whistle-blower was recommended in the report.

For me these were key failures:

1.     No recognition of parts played by CQC and DH during whistleblowing cases. Yet nearly all NHS whistleblowers, I have come across, have sought help from both CQC and DH who have been turned away stating it’s ‘an employment issue’ and ‘therefore cannot get involved’. This practice I have no doubt will continue.

2.     No recommendation for a public inquiry into historic cases. This was almost unanimously seen as a vital step forward by whistleblowers and their supporters. Without a public inquiry there is no transparency and no learning from cases.

3.     No recommendation for intervention when a whistleblower faces employment dispute – which is nearly always the case following raising concerns. Failure to implement interventions will mean, nothing will change and whistle-blowers will continue to face hefty legal costs, the public will continue to fund Trusts’ cover-ups. These may drag on for years. By which time careers of whistle-blowers have been destroyed, homes are lost and health are damaged. Patients will also have lost a valued member of staff and taxpayers have lost vast sums of money. More importantly, patients will continue to be placed at risk.

4.     No redress for suffering whistleblowers. I had asked for reinstatement of full income and pension in cases where there is a career loss. Despite now having a full knowledge what whistleblowers endure you have shamefully chosen to do nothing. Some whistle-blowers are totally destitute.

      This is despite it being recommended recently by the Health Select Committee, ‘We expect the NHS to respond in a timely, honest and open manner to patients, and we must expect the same for staff. We recommend that there should be a programme to identify whistle-blowers who have suffered serious harm and whose actions are proven to have been vindicated, and provide them with an apology and practical redress.

5.     There is no help available with legal expenses when whistleblowers face ruin due to extensive legal battle. This contrasts with fulsome support afforded to Trusts, with the approval of DH and the Treasury. Highlighting this hypocrisy, current cases show that this purse remains wide open to Trusts.

6.     There will be no ‘Independent’ Governing body who will investigate whistleblowing cases. By ‘independent’ I refer to an organisation outside the remit of DH and CQC, who have previously failed to support whistleblowers. Having a workplace ‘guardian’ is hardly independent and will be of no value and will do little to encourage confidence. Additionally having an independent National Officer will not provide effective support – ‘to advise NHS organisations to take appropriate action where they have failed …..’

7.     No recommendation for help with jobs of same stature and income. Page 26 Principle 12 as you know is wholly inadequate.

I had already written to you on this matter as this is an example I have found myself in. ‘Finding an alternative employment’ is simply not good enough. Trusts being forced to take on a whistleblower does not bode well. Neither is it good for a whistleblower to be forced into a job which is not their background or expertise. This leads to stress and a strained relationship with their employer, and bullying can result.

If alternative posts are to be found then these posts need to be permanent and of same pay, expertise and stature to the one lost. If whistleblowers are ill and or de-skilled, they should also be fully supported with either rehabilitation, with pay, and or a fair pension, as appropriate. The bottom line is, it should be clear to all that whistleblowing does not result in loss.

Imagine Mr Hunt finding yourself losing your job and someone finds you an alternative post in something completely unrelated. For example, taxi driving or selling fast food, at minimum wage. Would you be happy or feel grateful?

8.  There is no robust recommendation for swiftly holding to account the many corrupt individuals who covered up. This is despite reams of evidence that Sir Robert accepted was consistent and credible. In my own case, those who victimised me, and covered up fraud, remain happily employed.

I am enclosing a link to an article on response to Francis’s review.

https://sharmilachowdhury.com/2015/02/17/response-to-francis-report/

You have listened to us but have continued to ignore our request for genuine help.

Personally, I continue to face a very uncertain future whilst suffering from cancer. I may be homelessness in due course. Yet, you have chosen not to intervene. Additionally, you have refused to organise an independent investigation into my raised concerns.  This shows the hollowness of the review exercise, and the government’s response.

Those that were responsible for possible fraud and my dismissal are still in employment. The lack of accountability sends a clear message that one can bully and get away with it.

You have turned your back on NHS whistleblowers and by doing this you have also turned your back on vulnerable patients, who depend and trust staff to speak up when they see wrongdoings. You have also failed the tax paying public whose hard earned monies continue to be wasted.

I urge that you reconsider your actions and offer genuine help to NHS whistleblowers, and to re-open cases through a full Public Inquiry.

With Kind regards

Sharmila Chowdhury

Response to Francis Report

After much publicity and media coverage Sir Robert Francis was commissioned a review into NHS whistleblowing

After three month delays Francis report into whistleblowing was finally published on 11 February 2015.  There were numerous media coverage of the publication of the report.

What about the coverage after published report? Here are some of them:

Russia Times

Daily Mail

ITN News

Independent on Sunday

The Telegraph

 

So what did NHS whistleblowers and their supporters think?

Eileen Chubb 

Gary Walker 

Anon –    “Although yesterday’s report will probably help me, I have spent time with some wonderfully kind professional and dedicated, doctors nurses and health professionals in the review who won’t receive the help they badly need because they have already lost jobs, homes and had their lives destroyed.  In essence, how can I feel happy today? I feel like a survivor in a plane crash”
 
I am very upset guys. I wish it was me and not you!
It’s not right!
 
 
Minh Alexander:
I think the Speak Up review helps to advance understanding of what happens to NHS whistleblowers, but it does not reveal the full picture. I found it disappointing overall, as do a number of other whistleblowers.
The review was inherently and substantially flawed by the terms of reference, and the avoidance of any examination of whistleblowers’ concerns. The patient harm, including deaths, related to whistleblower suppression has hardly been referred to in the report.
 
There has been no acknowledgment of the gravity of what has been repeatedly covered up in many cases. It is therefore not valid for Robert Francis to argue the proportionality of his proposed measures. The matter has simply not been weighed in the balance in a way that gives the report authority.
 
My reading of the report is that Robert Francis has repeatedly pulled his punches throughout. The report consists largely of expectations. These types of expectations have existed for years. The last major NHS guidance on whistleblowing was published in 2010 ( http://www.pcaw.org.uk/files/SpeakupNHS.pdf ) .
 
The whole point is that the NHS has so far failed to  deliver in the face of such guidance. NHS organisations, assisted by highly paid lawyers, are endlessly creative and determined in creating and misusing loopholes against whistleblowers.  Without a different approach, strong enough proposals and enforcement of accountability, they will continue to play the system. I doubt that Robert Francis measures will prevent recidivism by the worst employers.
Robert Francis emphasised ignorance as a factor in NHS organisations failures to respond appropriately to whistleblowers. I think this somewhat misses the point, as much of the victimisation is carefully calculated, orchestrated and sanctioned at the top level of organisations. It is not a matter of educating hapless employers to do better, but recognising that these are immensely toxic organisations, which need a very firm hand.
 
Robert Francis’ description of what “good looks like” does not reflect reality. The notion that you can have a whistleblowing process in which no one gets blamed is unfeasible (page 91). Disclosures about misconduct and reckless endangerment of patients are hot potatoes, which is partly why there is sometimes extraordinary defensiveness by organisations. Airbrushing this very real tension out of the picture does not help resolution.
 
I was particularly disappointed by Robert Francis’s decision not to recommend any provision for independent investigation of whistleblower’s concerns. In the most serious cases, where there are attempts to cover up, I would have thought that independent investigation is essential.
 
Even the Government recognised this 5 years ago, when Mr Lansley spoke in Parliament of plans to consider an independent authority for NHS whistleblowers to turn to if employers were unresponsive. ( http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100609/debtext/100609-0004.htm ).
 
RF’s argument that it is appropriate to leave investigations in the hands of employers seems inconsistent with his views that complaints from patients about serious incidents should be independently investigated.
 
It is also inconsistent with general NHS policies, which mandate the external review of particularly serious incidents, and which recognise that it is important to eliminate conflicts of interest in these situations. I fear Robert Francis’ decision not to afford whistleblowers the protection of independent investigation will allow employers to continue with their well known techniques of undermining concerns, and discrediting whistleblowers.
 
There is also a relative absence of hard data in the report about the activities of the various organisations that submitted to the review. The review methodology stated at the outset that these organisations would be asked to provide the numbers and types of concerns that they handle. We must conclude that this data was either not provided, or that the review has failed to transparently disclose this vital information. Either option raises concern.
 
Furthermore, Robert Francis does not seem to have listened to whistleblowers’ concerns about the relationship between regulators and provider organisations, and the extent of regulatory independence.
 
I feel Robert Francis’ proposal of an “Independent National Officer” that has no binding powers and operates “under the combined aegis” of the three regulators and NHS England is unlikely to be workable or credible. NHS England has vested interests in the performance of the organisations that it commissions and oversees. No INO working under the DH or its arms length bodies can ever be truly independent.
 
 
By contrast, the US Office of Special Council, which has a remit to protect federal whistleblowers, has powers to litigate, and answers to the President. Even then the office is not perfect, but at least it is not designed to fail, which I feel is the case with the proposed INO.
 
However, an important clarification is that Robert Francis has stated that regulators have implied powers to protect whistleblowers. This is something that CQC has repeatedly denied to date, so we now have a very interesting situation. I hope CQC will re-evaluate their position and practice.
 
I also welcome the proposal to standardise process, as this opens the door to national audit and better measurement of performance.
 
The recognition by Robert Francis that whistleblower mistreatment is a form of discrimination is also useful. It is welcome that Robert Francis has acknowledged the need to make legislative provision to prohibit blacklisting. I feel he could have gone further and recommended other changes to the legislation, which is acknowledged by pretty much all to be inadequate.
The suffering that whistleblowers have endured could be leavened a little if it was felt that there had been effective learning from our experiences. However, I do not think that taken as a whole, the Speak Up review gives this consolation.
 
It is also very disappointing that no redress is recommended for whistleblowers whose lives have already been seriously damaged by victimisation. This seems to me deeply unjust and fails utterly to do justice to the enormity of these experiences.
 
I’ve heard of several whistleblowers in the most dire circumstances, with little hope of relief. It is simply uncivilised and immoral for the Government to turn its back on people who have been grievously injured for simply doing their duty.
Through its weakness, Robert Francis' report ultimately fails patients.
 
 

Fiona Bell:

Well the long awaited Francis report on whistle blowing , The review its self was finally an acknowledgement of the fact all is not well in our NHS . For years many of us having been highlighting these problems at great personal cost. It has taken many years to simply get the acknowledgement that something needed to be done. 

Would we have had the Francis report without the persistent pressure ? Without the help of Social media , some straight talking ,open emails and of course the help of our national press highlighting our concerns? I suspect not . 

The review team had to work within the terms of reference, That I accept , however I don't believe those in power can clap their hands in joy and claim to have addressed the issues raised and found us all a miracle solution . Why are those that bullied , harassed and hounded good staff out of their jobs still in post? 

Who protects the guardians? And will we now have a new wave of unprotected naive whistle blowers that assume because of the review it is now safe to speak up? 

Has anything really changed ? Has there been a culture change over night? was there at the very least a public apology from. Mr Hunt ? An apology may seem unimportant when there are much bigger issues, but let's face it, if a government/DH/nhs can't deliver a simple basic apology to all those that have lost so much, then what hope is there for the complete culture change? 

In order for all to move forward the issues of the past need to have been addressed , Nothing has changed for those that sacrificed so much in order to protect patients . Friday 13th Canary Wharf I met yet again with a whistle blower , despite The Francis review, the trust in his case continue to persecute. Beware there is no overnight fix, those that bully, victimise, persecute have not been disciplined nor are they likely to be . 

It is often said to me patient complainants suffer in the same way whistle blowers do , it's true. Being a Nhs whistle blower and complainant I have seen this time and time again , many patients themselves, their families are still afraid to complain , leaving issues unresolved . It is the same for whistle blowers . 

Patient families still continue to knock on the door for help despite the other Francis Report , I don't expect my case load to decrease in the coming year . Whistle blowing & Complaining comes with a heavy price tag , The day you dare to speak up is the day your world is turned upside down and life is never ever the same again. 

On the plus side through out the past 7 years I have had the privilege of meeting some incredibly brave people . 

Jo Gilbert

The Francis report was not only 3 months late but could have easily been written without anyone ever meeting a live whistleblower. It is virtually a lit. review that contains readily available information about what employers do to whistleblowers, collated from existing reports and research.

 Will it make one iota of difference to current whistleblowers? (“Current” is defined as those of us who are still asking and waiting for help four, five, ten years after we reported and were vindicated. There is no such thing as “historic” whistleblowing.)

 The answer is “No”. It will make no difference whatsoever. Francis and the report editors intentionally neglected to include any suggestions about what will be done to right the wrongs that everyone acknowledges has been done to those of us still fighting for justice.

 Will it make a difference to those who might have been “future whistleblowers”? Probably. It is likely to discourage them from making protected disclosures as they have now seen a written report which confirms that many are not protected, and have no recourse. The report confirms that whistleblowers are bullied, illegally sacked and blacklisted by the NHS, ESRs contain illegal and inaccurate data; they will probably see their careers terminated and are likely to lose their homes and families too. 

 The word “consequences” appears in the report 16 times. In 14 of those cases it refers to consequences of reporting that are experienced by whistleblowers. In one instance the report quickly and vaguely skims over a suggestion that NHS managers will receive “consequences” for doing what it recognises – 14 times – that they do. It simply says “there will be consequences” and does not even suggest what those should be or who will charge them with the offences (p.163, 7.5.8. The other case, p.105, 5.5.15, refers to the reference that will be made in 7.5.8).

 We have proved that NHS staff, Board members, NEDs, failed to do their duty, ignored PIDA, committed misconduct in public office and received rewards for their co-operation: Promotions, contracts, payoffs, prestigious positions. Who would voluntarily discontinue this lucrative practice?

 These are the facts. Until justice is done for those still struggling and fighting for it, who need nothing more than cash to buy it, this is never going to be over. This is not a life. It is a barely tolerable existence, we did nothing to deserve it and it gets progressively worse. It is not historic. It is daily. 

 There must be consequences for the many identified NHS staff and NEDs who have destroyed whistleblowers, ridden the Magic Roundabout and are still employed – either within or outside the NHS – before we will accept that our situations are sufficiently understood, are being taken seriously and are being corrected. So far there is no evidence that this is even being considered. There is no safe way to blow the whistle. We waited, tentatively hopeful, for months, for nothing.

 

 

Will Powell:

History has repeated itself, yet again, with regards to Sir Robert’s Report on whistleblowers as it would appear that there is no recommendation to address the injustices suffered by individual historic whistleblowers notwithstanding some have lost both their beloved careers and homes. I am told that some may have even lost their lives as a consequence of suicide.

I see whistleblowers and NHS complainants fighting the same cause and that is to improve patient safety issues within our NHS. However, the establishment see us as the enemy, not because we are wrong, but because we expose gross failures in the system and individuals, which is clearly detrimental to the wellbeing of our NHS. The establishment would rather cover up errors than address them for the better of all. There is conveniently no accountability when protocols, guidelines and laws are blatantly breached and that’s exactly how the establishment, in my view, want it to stay. I believe Sir Robert has failed again to ensure accountability when whistleblowers are vilified for speaking out.

It also frustrates me so very much when I hear arguments that healthcare professionals fear being open and honest about errors because of the alleged blame culture. All patients request is that doctors who make mistakes should be honest and accept responsibility for their actions – is that really too much to ask in a purported democratic country? It’s not the blame culture that healthcare professionals should fear but the consequences when they decide to lie and cover up their mistakes. The cover up culture in the NHS is like a very naughty child – it needs to receive appropriate punishment to make it stop.

 

Paul Cardin:

 Following this whitewash, if Sir Robert Francis becomes further enriched or is elevated to the House of Commons, then his own personal journey will have been successful.  As for the general public, patients, patients’ families, and the taxpayer, they’ve been betrayed by an establishment ‘shill’, who was selected by the powers that be, and who knew at the outset that whistleblowers would be offered a few crumbs and left to carry on fighting for justice.
Yet, despite strong sentiments from whistleblowers and supporters – only a handful have been mentioned here, Hunt has published the following message to staff

Lack of support for whistleblowers is a disgrace

Lack of support for whistleblowers is a disgrace

The Guardian  Sunday 15 February 2015 20.31 GMT
The Guardian has a laudable track record of supporting whistleblowing. However, in commenting on the impact of the Francis report on the culture of speaking up in the NHS (Editorial, 12 February), you demonstrate a rather conservative approach to legislative reform. First, there is no mention of possible criminal sanctions. Citizens who break the Official Secrets Act commit an offence, so why shouldn’t those who victimise people raising concerns in the public interest? The Protection from Harassment Act can be invoked if the narrow definition of harassment is fulfilled, but, in my opinion, outlawing any form of retaliation against whistleblowers would send out a valuable message about what society expects.

Second, you do not point out that only “workers” are covered by our whistleblowing legislation. However, it is clear that those who are in a position to raise concerns may not have this status – for example, patients and their families. Other countries now recognise the role that the public can play in exposing wrongdoing; in this important respect, the UK no longer provides an international model.
Professor David Lewis
Director, Whistleblowing research unit, Middlesex University

Were those hospital bosses prosecuted for conspiring against the public? Are they walking free?
Kevin McGrath
• Support and protection for whistleblowers is obviously essential, and it is disgraceful that it has failed to be adequately ensured for years. But that is only half the story. There needs to be effective action to deter those who would seek to harass or persecute whistleblowers, whoever they are.

“Doctors and nurses and other NHS staff who reported their anxieties about failings in patient care had been shunned, suspended and even sacked by hospital bosses,” the piece says. So what happened to the hospital bosses concerned? Were they prosecuted for conspiring against the public? Are they walking free? Until those who would harass whistleblowers know that doing so will endanger their careers and their liberty, warm words about how whistleblowers are “heroes working in the public interest” will be hollow.
Kevin McGrath
Harlow, Essex

• You say giving whistleblowers a percentage of any savings would be too transactionable for the UK. I strongly disagree. Whistleblowers, by your own admission, face career suicide, impoverishment and marriage breakdown. Paying them would strengthen their resolve.

John Richards
Oxford

• Whistleblowing can never work in a service such as the NHS, which depends entirely on trust and cooperation, and on personal references when it comes to promotion or merit awards. How many will be willing to sacrifice their entire professional careers and suffer isolation in their place of work for the public good? There is nothing the law can do about that. Safeguarding best practice needs independent monitors with statutory powers, whom patients and relatives can approach in every locality, as with community health councils, which, sadly, were abolished in the interests of efficiency savings.
Dr Richard Turner
Harrogate, North Yorkshire

• I believe Andrew Smith’s analysis of the problem faced by whistleblowers beyond the NHS is spot-on (We need to protect whistleblowers outside the NHS too, 13 February). Senior managers in the housing association where I work do indeed “defend their preposterous benefits through empire-building and the ruthless quashing of dissent”.

The narrative here is about “more from less”and “We are now estate agents, not social workers.” Everyone has to be “on message”, and employees are left in no doubt that the FIFO rule (Fit in or fuck off) applies. Anyone seeking to question the actions of management, whether because of a commitment to personal ethical values, professional standards or even regulatory requirement, is soon seeking alternative employment. No one dares to question management about anything any more.

I hear of so many similar stories from people working in schools, social services, universities and even voluntary organisations that it seems the management culture Andrew Smith exposes now dominates the publicly funded sector.
Name and address withheld

• Honorary knighthoods are given to non-Commonwealth citizens who have given great assistance to this country. I suggest one is given to the HSBC whistleblower, Hervé Falciani. What chance David Cameron’s support?
Stephen Foster
Christchurch, Dorset

• I worked as an independent volunteer in our local hospital. My job was to take patients a questionnaire that asked them to grade many aspects of their stay, including cleanliness, communications and clinical care. There was space for detailing any complaints they had.

These forms were submitted to the most senior nurses on the ward, and the volunteers had time to discuss the patients’ concerns.

Everyone involved, in any way, in the hospital had to attend a regular talk given by the chief executive or his deputy. This talk strongly encouraged anyone to flag up anything at all that they saw giving cause for concern in the hospital. The fact that these meetings were headed by the top brass demonstrated how seriously they took any complaints. Instead of further formal legislation, I suggest that these strategies could be helpful in all cases where patients are being cared for.
Pam Davey
South Petherton, Somerset

Dear Sir Robert Francis, your report on NHS whistlebowers is not enough – we need action on how these brave professionals can be helped

NHS whistleblower Dr David Drew writes an open letter to Sir Robert Francis, whose report on whistleblowing was published last week

Dear Sir Robert,

Thank you for the work you and your team put into the review. It will take time to digest the 222 page report. You have done a service to the NHS with your account of our experiences at the hands of hostile managers. More than 20,000 staff contributed to the review. The consistency of so many accounts of whistleblowers being victimised convinced you of their veracity. Few of us win at tribunal (you acknowledge the asymmetry of financial and legal resources) so our detractors have, in the past, been able to misrepresent our predicament. No longer.

Your descriptions of the forms our victimisation took and the impact this had are shocking, though not to us. Bullying was normal. Suspension, disciplinary action and dismissal were meted out with injurious consequences to our physical and psychological health. Careers were damaged or lost for challenging wrongdoing. Families were torn apart, houses lost, finances ruined. Many became ill; some died; some committed or contemplated suicide. At the launch of your report we held a one minute silence to honour those who did not survive the journey. All this you know.

And yet, at the end of your report you tell us that you can recommend no help to those who have suffered such atrocities for doing nothing but what was required of them by their professional ethical codes. This is despite prior recommendations by the Clwyd-Hart report, the January Health Committee report and the NHS Confederation. These all recognised the justice of our cause and the need for redress. They understand, as do the Hillsborough families, that injustice does not go away.

You have sent out exactly the wrong message. Whistleblowers are pawns who will not receive help, even from you. You have left us to our fate. This will have a further deterrent effect on staff raising concerns. The managers who have victimised us will feel more secure than they already were. They remain unaccountable. Patients who depend on our freedom to speak up will be less safe.

You see culture as central and make a number of recommendations for NHS culture change. You call for a just culture in which we learn from honest mistakes and do not punish those who make them. But how can a just culture be built on the foundation of injustice which is laid down by your failure to address the victimisation so many have experienced?

You acknowledge that culture change will be slow. Mr Hunt, optimistically, told the House it might take 10 years. Until the culture changes staff in poorly led trusts will continue to suffer, as will patients.

In 2001 Sir Ian Kennedy published his report on the Bristol Heart Scandal. In recommendation 107 he urged the development of a safe reporting system for patient harm. Your review, 14 years on, shows this has not happened. You have failed to explain why.

To do this will require a Public Inquiry. In the meantime a few CEO’s who have victimised whistleblowers should be despatched. Then we will applaud the overdue birth of your just culture.

Sincerely

David Drew

Dr David Drew, an NHS consultant at Walsall Manor Hospital for over 19 years and latterly a whistleblower, is the author of ‘Little Stories of Life and Death’

@NHSwhistleblowr

Jeremy Hunt – is ‘sorry’ really the hardest word?

By Fiona Bell

Whilst travelling through the night in preparation for the Francis review, I decided once again to tackle the issue of an apology for Families of the bereaved and NHS whistle blowers, I knew Mr Hunt was due to give his response to the Francis report, and like many others knew things were not right in the NHS for patients and whistle blowers,  so thought perhaps it would be the right time , I think my request is quite clear, yet again I ask politely for a public apology for all . 
From: Fbell
Date: 11 February 2015 00:27:30 GMT
To:mb-sofs@dh.gsi.gov.uk” <mb-sofs@dh.gsi.gov.uk>, huntj@parliament.uk

Subject: Francis report

Dear Mr Hunt,

On the 28th October I listened as you spoke at the zero harm event , at that event you may recall I asked for an apology, for all families that had lost loved ones because of unsafe care and for our NHS whistle blowers.  You went on to explain that you often wrote to families to apologise, but without wanting to appear harsh that did not address the issue , you simply gave the answer of a politician and talked around the issue.

Tomorrow you will give your response to the Francis report on whistle blowing , many people will have hopes and expectations that may well seem impossible to fulfil.

So once again I ask again for a public apology for bereaved families and whistle blowers.  A simple apology costs nothing ,  litigation however costs the tax payer a small fortune.

Kind Regards

Fiona Bell

Imagine my surprise today when I get such a prompt response . …...

From: DoNotReply@dh.gsi.gov.uk
Date: 12 February 2015 11:25:36 GMT
To: fbell
Subject: Response to your Query :  – Ref:DE00000897093 – Your correspondence about whistleblowing.
Our ref: DE00000897093
 
Dear Ms Bell,

Thank you for your recent correspondence about whistleblowing, and your call for the Secretary of State for Health to make a public statement.  I have been asked to reply.

I hope you had the chance to see Mr Hunt’s statement in the House of Commons yesterday.  A link to the transcript of that statement is here:https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/francis-report-update-and-response.

Yours sincerely,

Alan Addison
Ministerial Correspondence and Public Enquiries
Department of Health

One would ask do our politicians not understand a simple plain English request , it appears that “sorry” really is the hardest word.

 

Whistleblower whitewash: Health staff who dare to speak out will still not be protected, says report

By SOPHIE BORLAND and CLAIRE ELLICOTT and DANIEL MARTIN FOR THE DAILY MAIL  
  • Lead Barrister said whistleblowers treated as ‘snitches and backstabbers’
  • Called for guardians at each NHS trust to protect those who expose abuse
  • But report contains no extra legal protection for those who come forward
  • Campaigners brand it an ‘affront’, ’empty words’ and ‘disappointing’ 
Julie Bailey, who helped expose the Mid Stafforshire scandal after her mother died there in 2007, said the report was 'disappointing'

A report into the NHS’s shocking treatment of whistleblowers was yesterday branded a ‘whitewash’ that will do nothing to protect staff who raise concerns.

The long-awaited findings warned of a culture of ‘fear, bullying and ostracisation’ within the health service that punished doctors and nurses who dared speak out.

But whistleblowers whose careers have been ruined after issuing warnings over patient care were furious that among the 20 recommendations were no sanctions against bosses who bullied staff or made them sign gagging orders.

There is also growing unease about a key clause in the report which strongly urges whistleblowers not to speak to the Press – advising staff instead to talk to journalists only as a ‘last resort’ to avoid causing ‘considerable distress.’

One measure even includes a full-time ‘whistleblowing guardian’ at every hospital and Trust to whom staff could go with their concerns.

Led by barrister Sir Robert Francis, who chaired two major inquiries into the Mid Staffordshire hospital scandal, the report told of how whistleblowers are too often derided as ‘snitches, troublemakers and backstabbers.’

It said many are ‘victimised’ by managers, forced out of their jobs and unable to find other work because they are in effect blacklisted in the NHS.

The Government has promised to enforce all of Sir Robert’s 20 recommendations and other key reforms aimed at changing NHS culture so that staff can raise concerns without fear of reprisals.

Yet whistleblowers said the document contained ‘empty words’ that failed to protect staff and deterred them from speaking to the media – which in the past had helped them expose numerous NHS scandals.

Many felt they had no choice after their concerns were repeatedly ignored by hospital bosses and watchdogs. Gary Walker, the chief executive who was sacked from United Lincolnshire Hospitals after raising concerns that patients were dying, said the recommendations were an ‘affront’ to whistleblowers.

He called for criminal sanctions against managers who forced staff to sign gagging agreements.

Mr Walker, 43, was ordered to sign a £500,000 gagging order in 2012 which he bravely defied by speaking to the Mail the following year.

Barrister Sir Robert Francis, who drew up the report after helping to lead inquiries into Mid Staffordshire Hospital, said whistleblowers were often regarded as 'snitches, troublemakers, and backstabbers'

John Marchant, who lost his job as head of security at The Dudley Group Foundation Trust after raising concerns that patients were being restrained, said: ‘No one is being held to account.

‘The CEOs (chief executives) at these hospital Trusts are still CEOs and if they get a lot of complaints they just move to another position as a CEO,’

Julie Bailey, who helped expose the Mid Staffordshire scandal after the death of her mother Bella in 2007, said the report was ‘disappointing’ and did not go far enough.

She called for criminal sanctions against managers who victimise whistleblowers.

There is also growing unease about a key clause in the report which strongly urges whistleblowers not to speak to the Press

‘The new report is a little disappointing,’ she said. ‘There is no more protection for whistleblowers as a result.

‘Robert Francis’ recommendations from the Mid Staffs report were that there should be criminal sanctions against these people.

‘He didn’t want a blame culture but we need people held to account in society as a whole.

‘Until we start doing that, we are never going to get a change of culture in the NHS.’

Sir Robert was asked by the Government to lead a review on the treatment of NHS whistleblowers last June after heading two inquiries into Mid Staffordshire hospital which concluded that at least 400 patients died from neglect.

The barrister and his team spoke to 600 NHS staff while 19,800 other employees gave their views on an online survey.

His 222-page report concluded that managers were inclined to ‘delay, defend and deny’ allegations made by whistleblowers – often because they were implicated.

Sir Robert said: ‘What I heard during the course of the review from staff, employers, regulators and unions and others leaves me in no doubt that there’s a serious problem in the NHS.

‘Too often, honestly-expressed anxieties have met with hostility and breakdown of working relationships. Worse still, some people suffer life-changing events, they lose their jobs, their careers and even their health. 

 

Tory Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt (left) promised to call time on bullying within the NHS, backing all of the report’s proposals, a move echoed by shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham (right) 

Jeremy Hunt reveals NHS whistleblower guardians
 

‘We heard all too frequently of jobs being lost, but also of serious psychological damage, even to the extent of suicidal depression.

‘In short, lives can be ruined by poor handling of staff who have raised concerns.’

Health secretary Jeremy Hunt promised to call time on ‘bullying, intimidation and victimisation’ which has ‘no place in our NHS.’

He told the Commons: ‘The only way we will build an NHS with the highest standards is if the doctors and nurses who have given their lives to patient care always feel listened to when they speak out about patient care.

‘The message must go out today that we are calling time on bullying, intimidation and victimisation, which have no place in our NHS.’

‘We will ensure that every member of staff, NHS manager and NHS leader has proper training on how to raise concerns and how to treat people who raise concerns.’

Labour also backed the recommendations and Shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham said there was ‘plenty of common ground’ between the two parties,

He added: ‘Our shared aim must be to create a climate where any NHS worker feels able to raise concerns, confident they will be listened to and that appropriate action will be taken and not face mistreatment as a result.’ 

GOING PUBLIC ‘SHOULD BE LAST RESORT’ TO AVOID CAUSING ‘DISTRESS’

Omission: The report does not recommend any extra powers to protect whistleblowers who decide to make their allegations public (file image)

The Francis review does not suggest any reforms on the issue of whether whistleblowers who go public should be protected.

Instead, it merely says the status quo should apply – hidden away on page 190 of the report.

In just a few paragraphs, Sir Robert Francis says that staff should only contact the Press as a ‘last resort’.

He wrote: ‘For a disclosure to be made straight into the public domain, to someone who is not a prescribed person, a higher bar applies.

‘I am not proposing any changes to this. Disclosures to the Press should be a last resort. There is a strong possibility of misrepresentation if the facts have not yet been investigated.

‘This can be damaging. It can cause considerable distress to the individuals involved, to the organisation as a whole, and can worry the public unnecessarily.’

According to the report, lawyers currently consult an amendment to the Employment Rights Act 1996 for guidance on whether a whistleblower would face disciplinary action or the sack. It states that staff can only speak out if the disclosure is considered ‘reasonable’.

In addition, other conditions must be met including that the worker should ‘reasonably’ believe that raising a concern with their boss could be of ‘detriment’ to them.

Whistleblowers could still be protected if they felt damning evidence was in danger of being concealed or destroyed, or if they felt they were being ignored.

 
 

NHS workers victimised for revealing hospital scandals to Press

FORCED TO SIGN GAGGING CONTRACT

Gary Walker submitted a large body of evidence to the inquiry but was never asked about his experiences or his recommendations.

He told the Mail that the report was a ‘whitewash’ and that it provides no extra protection for staff who raise concerns.

‘Patients are dying and whistleblowers are being sacked for pointing that out,’ he said.

‘The report doesn’t address that and Francis clearly hasn’t understood the seriousness of the problem. He’s a man of the establishment and he protects the establishment and has produced the report that you would expect. Francis has pulled his punches.

‘This report will not change the NHS at all. I don’t see any change in culture as a result. There is no extra protection for whistleblowers as a result of this report.’

Mr Walker, 43, was sacked as chief executive of the United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust after raising concerns that meeting targets were being put ahead of patient safety.

He was forced to sign a £500,000 gagging contract, but broke his silence with the Daily Mail following the Robert Francis report into Mid-Staffordshire where up to 1,200 patients died unnecessarily.

‘I broke my gag because his report failed to apportion any blame and did not hold any individuals to account,’ he said.

‘This has now happened again. All the people who have gagged whistleblowers in the past will carry on in their jobs with their big fat salaries and will not be held to account. The solution is to sack the people who victimise the whistleblowers.’

Mr Walker said that an independent person from outside the NHS should be appointed for whistleblowers to bring their concerns to.

‘It’s not safe for whistleblowers to report their concerns to employers,’ he added. ‘It’s been proved by the hundreds of whistleblowers out there who have been sacked, gagged and had their lives destroyed after reporting concerns.’

Last night, other NHS whistleblowers told of their fury that their former bosses had not been named and shamed and branded the report a ‘whitewash’.

‘HIRED TO FIDDLE DEATH FIGURES’

NHS whistleblower Sandra Haynes Kirkbright said no one had even bothered to call her to hear her story for the Francis report.

The administrator was suspended for almost three years after claiming she was hired by The Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust to fiddle death figures.

‘I am still in limbo,’ she said. ‘Nobody called me about the Francis report. They don’t want to talk to me now. They didn’t care enough to call me.

‘Has anything changed? This is all just about a political agenda.’

 
 

13-YEAR BATTLE OVER UNFAIR DISMISSAL

Top surgeon Raj Mattu warned that whistleblowers were ‘no safer’ following the report.

The doctor was unfairly dismissed and persecuted for a decade after warnings over cardiac patient safety at University Hospital Coventry but was cleared of wrongdoing after a 13-year battle costing the taxpayer £10million.

He said of the Francis report: ‘He’s given charge of the solution to the very people who were part of the problem in the first place – those who were instrumental in the Mid-Staffs cover-up and instrumental in cases against whistleblowers like myself and David Drew.

‘Leopards don’t change their spots. I would say to NHS whistleblowers, you are no safer today than you were yesterday. This is a missed opportunity to make the NHS safer for patients.’

 PATIENTS ‘RESTRAINED AGAINST THEIR WILL’

John Marchant lost his job as head of security at The Dudley Group Foundation Trust after raising concerns that elderly patients and children were being restrained against their will.

Of yesterday’s report, he said: ‘No one is being held to account.

‘The CEOs at these hospital trusts are still CEOs and if they get a lot of complaints they just move to another position as a CEO.

‘Why publish it? It is not holding people to account. Just another whitewash.

 

‘CATASTROPHIC’ FAILURES WARNING

Paediatrician David Drew, who was sacked after complaining about ‘catastrophic’ failures at Walsall Manor Hospital, said the report failed to address previous whistleblowing cases.

‘What we want is all our old cases opened up, so we can have some actual retribution,’ he said.

‘We need our jobs back, our careers back. We need a proper public inquiry and to have the individual cases looked at.

‘There have been some evil CEOs. The whole toxic lying and bullying has to come out. Some of the bosses should go to jail for what they have done.’

 

FORCED OUT AFTER REPORTING £250K LOSS

Sharmila Chowdhury, who has suffered cancer since losing her job, said that it was ‘scandalous’ that no one had been held to account.

The radiography manager for Ealing Hospital NHS Trust was sacked for telling bosses that £250,000 of public money had been lost through moonlighting by two medical consultants.

‘It’s scandalous that we have lost our jobs, careers and in some cases our homes and health, yet still no one has been held to account,’ she said.

‘The CEOs are left to enjoy a normal life despite their wrong-doing, while whistleblowers who did their job and spoke up have been left with nothing.’

 

SPOKE OUT ABOUT BRUTAL TREATMENT

David Ore, who was fired for complaining about the brutal treatment of patients at the failing Russells Hall Hospital in Dudley, said the report contained ‘empty words’.

‘The report is grossly unfair to the frontline workers who raise concerns then get ignored, marginalised and accused of trumped up accusations,’ he said.

‘It’s a lot of empty words that will have cost the public a few million pounds to say what we all knew already.’

NHS whistleblower: report doesn’t go far enough

The most senior NHS whistleblower has said a major new report into the problem, published today, doesn’t go anywhere near far enough. Gary Walker, the former Chief Executive of the United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust, who lost his job five years ago before speaking out, says not enough is being done to tackle those who victimise staff who voice their concerns.

The Freedom to Speak Up report was written by the QC Sir Robert Francis who says the NHS needs to undergo a culture change when it comes to whistleblowing. Those who do speak out, he says, often find themselves in a “toxic mix of grievance and disciplinary action” from their bosses.

He’s laid out 20 principles and wants freedom to speak up guardians in every hospital and an independant national officer to review complaints. He says something needs to happen now.

Last updated Wed 11 Feb 2015

Whistleblowing:’It’s still not safe for us to speak out’

The Telegraph

Whistle-blowers say Sir Robert Francis’s report fails to offer enough protection to staff to who speak out and will not encourage others to come forward

Whistle-blowers have warned more needs to be done to protect them and encourage others in the NHS to speak out, despite the recommendations in Sir Robert Francis’s report.

Amanda Pollard, a senior inspector with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) watchdog who resigned after saying that the organisation “would not spot another Stafford” – the hospital where failings led to hundreds of “excess deaths” – said Sir Robert’s recommendations would have done little to protect her at the time.

She told The Telegraph: “The legal protection he recommends seems to be aimed at people who are looking for work after being forced out of their job for whistleblowing, rather than protecting whistle blowers in their organisation.”

Mrs Pollard said several of the principles put forward by Sir Robert to protect whistle-blowers depended on the good will of NHS trusts and bodies to implement them.

“Saying that the culture needs to be more open relies on that organisation wanting to be more open. Where is the incentive for them to do that? And where are the sanctions if they don’t? There don’t appear to be any” she said.

Mrs Pollard, who had worked in the NHS for 20 years, left the CQC in 2013 after growing increasingly frustrated with the behaviour of management as she tried to alert them to her concerns.

She complained to her managers after the CQC disbanded its infection control teams – which advised hospitals on the crucial task reducing the risk to patients of ‘superbug’ infections such as MRSA, C. diff and E-coli – and transferred the inspectors to regional teams.

The result was that Mrs Pollard and her colleagues found themselves inspecting care homes and nursing homes, in which they had no expertise or knowledge. She told Mid-Staffs inquiry: “I could not believe that something so effective could be thrown away.”

Mrs Pollard said on Wednesday: “If all of Sir Robert’s recommendations were in place now I would still be hesitant about coming forward with my concerns.

“I just don’t see how his recommendations would have helped my case or changed what happened to me.”

Mrs Pollard, who has found it impossible to get work elsewhere in the NHS since speaking out over her fears, also questioned how effective Sir Robert’s proposal for ‘whistle-blower guardians’ would be if they were recruited from the ranks of NHS managers.

“For them to be fully effective they need to be at board level. If they were trust managers they could easily be accused of not being independent,” she said.

Robert Rose, a medical negligence lawyer with Lime Solicitors, said other pledges this week to introduce financial sanctions for hospitals that fail to be honest about clinical mistakes were “likely to make little difference” if NHS whistle-blowers remained unprotected.

He said: “Potential whistleblowers must be able to voice their concerns safe in the knowledge that this will not negatively impact on their careers. Until this is addressed, and a watertight process is put in place where staff can safely raise concerns, the culture within the NHS will not change.”

David Drew, a consultant paediatrician who claimed he was sacked after raising the alarm over a toddler who died after being discharged from Walsall Manor Hospital, said the Francis review underlined existing problems but that the failure to help those whose lives had been crushed remained an “open sore” on the NHS.

He added: “We will be back campaigning for reopening of cases of sacked whistle-blowers.”

In April 2012 an employment tribunal rejected Mr Drew’s claims of unfair dismissal, religious discrimination and victimisation against Walsall Hospitals NHS Trust.

Gary Walker, the former chief executive of United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust, said Sir Robert’s recommendations would prove to be “completely ineffective”.

He said: “The focus should have been on dealing with the individuals who victimise whistle-blowers, and these are usually trust board members. Sir Robert seems to be saying that no one is to blame and that’s absolutely ridiculous.”

Mr Walker claimed his warning to senior NHS figures about patient safety were ignored for years until he was eventually sacked by the trust in 2010, ostensively for swearing in meetings.

Raj Mattu, a cardiologist who publicly exposed overcrowding at Walsgrave Hospital in Coventry in 2001, claiming it might have led to avoidable deaths, said there still a lack of “sufficient protection” for potential whistle-blowers.

Dr Mattu said earlier that Sir Robert’s recommendations were “of no value if they are not going to be enforced”.

He added: “As of today, I don’t believe there are sufficient protections in place that are of any value. I couldn’t possibly recommend anybody else whistle blow at this moment and go through the sort of ordeal I and others have gone through.”

Hundreds of senior doctors and nurses gave evidence to Sir Robert about how their careers came to a standstill after they tried to alert NHS managers of unsafe practices and cost-cutting risking lives.

Sir Robert told The Telegraph the NHS should exploit the idealism of its doctors and nurses and not crush those who put patients first.

Dr Mattu welcomed Sir Robert’s report, but added: “It’s frustrating and depressing to hear that whilst there is often and periodically noises made about … protecting whistle-blowers, the reality is there are very few palpable, material changes that take place.

“Today even, the culture is very unsafe. There is still ongoing persecution of whistle-blowers on a grand scale.”

Dr Mattu said: “Large numbers of managers in the NHS are in there for a different reason to the nurses and doctors. Most of us come in because we want to care for people. Managers largely come from a background of wanting a career in management.

“Many of us who are whistle-blowers feel compelled and a moral obligation to speak up. I saw practices in my hospital that were putting patient safety and lives at risk.”

Some whistle-blowers were more enthusiastic about the report.

Roger Davidson, currently Head of Media and Public Affairs at NHS England, said: “A culture of denial has absolutely no place in our NHS – there should be no ifs or buts. The fact this report has been produced is a powerful first step. It sets the direction and provides a yardstick against which we can measure. But it’s behaviours that will make a difference. I hope the NHS roots out poor behaviour and drives strong values-based leadership to every corner of the health service.”

Mr Davidson lost his job as head of media and public affairs for the CQC just before the 2010 general election, after telling how a quarter of NHS trusts had failed to meet basic hygiene standards.

He also warned that the CQC had stopped telling the public how to find reports on infections in their local hospitals in order to limit publicity damaging to the NHS.

Mr Davidson was forced to sign a gagging order when he left, but his testimony emerged during the Francis inquiry into the failings at Mid-Staffs.

Sir Robert’s proposal to station “freedom to speak up guardians” in hospitals to help staff in coming forward was based on an idea by Helene Donnelly, a nurse who raised the alarm at Stafford Hospital.

Ms Donnelly, who advised Sir Robert on how whistle-blowers could be helped and now works as ambassador for cultural change at Stafford, suggested the guardians would be able to go over the head of hospital boards who failed to act appropriately.

“(In the) worst case scenario, if the board fails to act and there is serious patient or staff safety risk, they can then take it externally to an external guardian and all the other regulators as well to ensure the problem is dealt with,” she said.

The campaign group Patients First said: “We believe that those staff who are brave enough to raise patient safety concerns should be treasured, not bullied, and look to Jeremy Hunt to decisively act to help change the prevailing culture in large parts of the NHS and protect such staff.”

But Chris Hopson, chief executive of NHS Providers, the association of NHS foundation trusts and trusts, said that while “there is a significant minority of trusts where whistle-blowers are not being treated appropriately”, the NHS had been ranked as the safest health care system in the world.

Mr Hopson said out that only 0.06% of NHS interactions with patients ended in complaints and that more that 80% of patients were satisfied with the care they received.

ITV News : “Treatment of whistleblowers truly shocking”

 

Play video     
Treament of NHS whistleblower’s ‘truly shocking’, report finds

A review into the treatment of whistleblowers in the NHS has found “truly shocking” evidence of staff being driven to the brink of suicide after being bullied by colleagues, the report’s author Sir Robert Francis QC has said.

‘Climate of fear’: NHS staff scared of exposing danger to patients, whistleblowers tell RT

Published time: February 11, 2015 16:13

An inquiry that found many NHS staff do not raise concerns about patient safety because they fear being ignored or bullied did not go far enough, whistle-blowing health professionals told RT.

The Freedom to Speak Up Review found a “climate of fear” permeates the NHS in England, with whistleblowers subject to “shocking” treatment when they attempt to speak out.

Sir Robert Francis QC, who led the inquiry, made a series of recommendations in his report including the appointment of “guardians” in each hospital to support staff who want to raise concerns.

However, two former whistleblowers who spoke to RT, said the report fell short of tackling the real problems facing staff who speak out.

A group of former NHS staff protesting against the service’s “horrific” treatment of whistleblowers on Wednesday claimed the report did not go far enough to stop further incidents happening.

Carrying placards calling for “more accountability” and “more transparency” in the NHS, the group marched from Millbank Tower to Downing Street.

Minh Alexander, a former consultant psychiatrist and whistleblower who joined the protest, outlined areas where the report fell short.

Speaking to RT, she said: “I question whether the proposals go far enough and will prove in time to be protective to other whistleblowers who arise from now on.”

Based on our collective experience, NHS organizations can be extremely devious and there is a lack of independence between NHS organizations and regulators, in our opinion,” she added.

I think this report doesn’t fully address that or remedy it.”

Dr David Drew, a respected pediatrician who was sacked for gross misconduct after raising serious concerns about patient protection, admitted the report had some good recommendations.

He told RT: “This is a good report, [Francis] worked hard to understand the situation. He’s come to understand the horrific reaction that whistleblowers in the NHS can meet … and he’s recommended a few things which may help to calm that down in the future.

But the big problem is that he has done nothing to address the problems of those people who have been ruined as a result of whistleblowing in the past,” he said.

Drew was fired after a 37-year career in the NHS for sending a well-known prayer to staff by email.

NHS whistleblowers take their protest to Westminster

NHS whistleblowers take their protest to Westminster

He claims the real reason for his dismissal was because he questioned the competence of a fellow consultant who sent a toddler with “suspicious injuries” home in 2007, only for the child to be killed by his step-father a week later.

An independent investigation into 16-month-old Kyle Keen’s death found it could have been prevented.

Drew’s unjust dismissal is an example of the “shocking” treatment Sir Robert Francis heard about during his inquiry.

Drew believes the report should recommend giving assistance to whistleblowers who risk everything to tell the truth.

There are 30- and 40-year-old people who lost their jobs, their careers, they’re ruined financially through the tribunals. Their health is gone, often, they have no future, and Sir Robert has not been able to make any recommendation to help those people.

I think that’s wrong and it’s something we will be continuing to campaign on,” he added.

The Freedom to Speak Up Review does recommend the NHS help workers who, as a result of raising concerns, are unable to carry on in their current employment.

While the report recommends the NHS “establish a support scheme” for whistleblowers who cannot find work in health service, it stipulates this should apply to workers “whose performance is sound.

As such, NHS whistleblowers like Dr Drew, who were sacked on trumped up charges of “gross misconduct,” may not be eligible for support.

While conducting the inquiry, Francis heard evidence from 600 people. Another 19,000 filled out an online survey.

READ MORE: ‘Inexcusable pain’: MPs slam NHS for whistleblower treatment

Speaking to the BBC on Wednesday, Francis said: “I’ve heard some frankly shocking stories about [staff] whose health has suffered, and in rare cases who’ve felt suicidal as a result of their perception of them being ignored or worse.

Key recommendations made in his report include the appointment of “guardians” in hospitals to support staff who raise concerns.

Francis calls for a national independent officer to help guardians when whistleblower cases are encountering problems.

The report also called for new processes to be established at all NHS trusts to ensure staff and patient concerns are investigated properly.