NHS Grampian whistleblower cleared over bullying claims

BBC News 27 October 2015
Malcolm Loudon
Image captionMalcolm Loudon described the bullying allegations as a vindictive attempt to destroy him

An NHS whistleblower who was accused of bullying after he spoke out about patient safety has been cleared of all allegations by the General Medical Council (GMC).

Surgeon Malcolm Loudon wrote to health secretary Alex Neil before leaving his job at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary.

His claims sparked a review which was critical of NHS Grampian but also brought bullying allegations against him.

The GMC has dismissed the claims.

It also questioned the standard of evidence put forward in the internal investigation.

NHS Grampian has accepted all the recommendations of the reports into Mr Loudon’s claims and apologised to patients.

It said it “strongly refuted any suggestion that NHS Grampian is uncaring or puts patients at risk”.

Mr Loudon, who left his post last December, said the health board’s actions were vindictive attempts to destroy him.

He said: “I think it’s been an attempt to silence me and it’s been done in a way that’s really quite ruthless – not so much silence but destroy.

“It’s a recklessly irresponsible way to behave merely to wreak revenge on those who have called the organisation’s conduct, and indeed values and standards, into question.

“And as every senior clinician leaves, patient care is further damaged.”

Donnie Ross
Image captionFormer NHS Grampian medical director Donnie Ross believes doctors are being punished for criticising the system

The GMC said it had examined the information it received about Mr Loudon, and “decided to conclude this case with no further action”.

Its official report said: “We conclude that none of the matters alleged meet the realistic prospect test, and the case should be closed.

“The evidence falls far below the standard required to prove these allegations. We find it difficult to understand how the investigator reached the conclusion.”

Mr Loudon, who now works with a different health board, described the conduct of NHS Grampian as “absolutely uncaring”.

He said: “We talk about person-centred care and I think this is being ignored completely.

“The government must get to the heart of what went wrong, why people behaved in this disgraceful fashion and indeed are continuing to behave in a destructive fashion.

“So the Scottish government must commission a judge-led inquiry into the actions and conduct of all the people involved in this process.”

The surgeon previously described the working environment at NHS Grampian as having “all the features of a toxic organisation”.

He said: “We are like an elastic that is stretched almost to breaking point but we have managed to maintain that level of safety despite everything.

“A toxic culture is defined by where people are unhappy, they don’t want to come to their work, turnover is high, there are high rates of sickness and there is no feeling of shared values between management and between those who are actually delivering the services.”

‘Widespread problem’

BBC Scotland has spoken to nine other doctors who say they raised concerns about the care being provided to patients by NHS Grampian.

Some, like Malcolm Loudon, said they felt forced to leave when accusations were made against them.

Others are currently under suspension by the health board.

Many expressed concern that other medical staff would see how they have been treated and be put off raising concerns that could ultimately save lives.

Donnie Ross, retired former medical director at NHS Grampian, said: “There is evidence of a very widespread problem in the culture.

“Doctors are crushed and got rid of because they criticise the system or they criticise some aspect of patient care. Actually doctors are supposed to do that.”

NHS Grampian said: “It is not appropriate for us to comment on confidential correspondence between an external organisation and an individual.

“NHS Grampian has not and does not take punitive action against any staff who raise concerns. We have not suspended or dismissed staff in response to the raising of concerns or ‘whistle blowing’.

“We strongly refute any suggestion that NHS Grampian is uncaring or puts patients at risk.

“The safety of patients and staff is a top priority for the Board. We believe the quality of care and the experience of patients in Grampian is among the best in Scotland.”

CQC Inspectors in the dark

To David Behan, Chief Executive Care Quality Commission, 19 October 2015

 

Dear Mr Behan,

 CQC assessment of regulated organisations’ whistleblowing governance

 We write about specific actions that CQC could include in its inspection process to ensure that whistleblowers are fairly treated.

 As you will be aware, in his report of the Freedom To Speak Up Review, Sir Robert Francis concluded that regulators could do more to protect whistleblowers.

 “I believe there is scope for the systems regulators to play a bigger role. In particular I think they should pay more attention to the record of an NHS organisation in respect of how it handles concerns, and take regulatory action where that record is poor”

 

Report of Freedom to Speak Up Review 11 February 2015

 

 Reprisal against whistleblowers is a core governance issue. We believe CQC should inspect organisations’ whistleblowing governance systematically, consistently and in detail.

 CQC’s currently published guidance for its inspectors on assessing whistleblowing governance appears very limited to us and it does not set out what inspectors should actually do when they are inspecting:

 http://www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/rp_poc1c1b2b3b4b_100997_20110815_v1_supporting_notes.pdf

 It seems to us that this lack of robust inspection guidance could easily lead to variability and to important issues being overlooked. The lack of auditable standards in the current notes for inspectors also means that CQC cannot robustly audit its performance.

 We understand that CQC’s position is that it will not investigate individual cases but that in theory, it can review governance issues on a thematic basis. There is clearly a whole spectrum of actions that CQC can take to thematically review issues. However, it is our experience that CQC is very quick to retreat behind its “non-investigation” policy, and to take little action, even where it has been informed of multiple whistleblowers in an organisation.

 Moreover, our experience is that CQC often draws on anecdotal data from staff randomly interviewed on the day of inspection, and that CQC sometimes seems to give this more weight than structured national staff survey data or the feedback of whistleblowers who have been severely victimised.

 We feel the following are important parameters that CQC should routinely examine and report upon when conducting inspections, especially with reference to the “well-led” domain: 

·      Data from interviewing whistleblowers about their experience, both in terms of the resolution of their concerns and the personal impact of whistleblowing.

·      Data on suspension and disciplinary action against staff who have raised concerns.

·      Data on dismissal of staff after raising concerns and data on cases where providers have been found to have unfairly dismissed staff who raised concerns. 

·      Data on referral to professional regulators of staff who raise concerns, and data on cases where providers have referred staff to professional regulators but no allegations are upheld. 

·      Data on employment claims against providers 

·      Data from examining compromise agreements for signs of indirect gagging, such as non-disparagement clauses or clauses that prevent staff from disclosing the existence of compromise agreements.

·     Data from CQC’s inspection of providers’ local records on whistle blowing events and staff experience, whether such records adhere to good practice guidance, and whether Trusts can evidence learning from whistleblowing events, either singly or on an aggregate basis. (Early responses to FOI enquiries suggest that many Trusts have inadequate whistleblowing governance, but CQC has to our knowledge largely not reported this). 

·      Data from the national NHS staff survey

CQC has acknowledged the general importance of specialist expertise in conducting its inspections. We believe that in keeping with this, assessment of whistleblowing governance is undertaken by inspectors with defined, specialist skills. 

We believe that as a matter of policy, no organisations should receive an overall “good” rating from CQC unless it demonstrates good whistleblowing governance. This is needed to send a clear message to organisations that CQC prioritises the fair treatment of whistleblowers.

Please let us have your response on these proposals and whether you are willing to ensure that there is greater whistleblowing expertise in inspection teams. Please also let us know if you are willing to issue more effective guidance to CQC inspectors, which contains auditable inspection standards by which CQC can be transparently held to account.

We would be grateful if you would reply directly to all signatories. 

Yours sincerely,

Minh Alexander

Fiona Bell

Sharmila Chowdhury

David Drew

Narinder Kapur

Gary Walker

Maha Yassaie

 

cc Health Committee

     Sir Rober Francis QC

     Professor Louis Appleby CQC NED and Chair of Regulatory Governance Committee

     National Audit Office

 

Whistleblower outed by hospital bosses in cancer drugs cover-up: Health chiefs try to discredit and reveal name of professor

By PAUL BENTLEY AND KATHERINE FAULKNER FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 14 October 2015

* Professor revealed patients were needlessly put through chemotherapy
* Had wished to remain anonymous after disclosing ‘macabre experiment’
* Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust named whistleblower in a statement
* Tried to discredit him by stating restrictions had been put on his ability to practice

An NHS whistleblower who revealed patients were needlessly put through the agony of chemotherapy has been outed by his bosses.
The professor wished to remain anonymous after disclosing the ‘macabre experiment’ carried out by colleagues.

But health chiefs tried to discredit him yesterday in a statement described as ‘obscene victimisation’.
The whistleblower had previously been gagged from warning the public about his concerns by bosses at the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust.
The chemotherapy was administered in defiance of strict guidelines by oncologists Dr Margaret King, pictured, and Dr Mark Churn to patients with colorectal cancer

The chemotherapy was administered in defiance of strict guidelines by oncologists Dr Margaret King, pictured, and Dr Mark Churn to patients with colorectal cancerThe chemotherapy was administered in defiance of strict guidelines by oncologists Dr Margaret King, and Dr Mark Churn, pictured, to patients with colorectal cancer

The chemotherapy was administered in defiance of strict guidelines by oncologists Dr Margaret King, and Dr Mark Churn, pictured, to patients with colorectal cancer

The chemotherapy was administered in defiance of strict guidelines by oncologists Dr Margaret King, left, and Dr Mark Churn, right, to patients with colorectal cancer
He was also subjected to racist abuse, which became the focus of a criminal investigation.
Last night, MPs and campaigners demanded intervention from the Health Secretary.
Former colleagues of the whistleblower also contacted the Mail to speak out about his ‘horrendous treatment’.
One said: ‘The whistleblower was one of the most valued members of staff. There has been a witchhunt to silence him. Instead of tarnishing his name they should apologise to the patients.’
The Daily Mail yesterday revealed how 55 patients aged between 49 and 83 were wrongly exposed to chemotherapy by two doctors between 2005 and 2009.
The chemotherapy, which was administered against guidelines, was of no medical use to the patients because their type of cancer required different treatment. But it exposed them to horrific and unnecessary side effects including higher risk of fatal infections and lost fertility.

At least one patient suffered long-term harm and several developed neuropathy – nerve damage that causes stabbing pains, excruciating sensitivity to cold or heat and, in extreme cases, paralysis or organ failure.
In a shocking cover up, the cancer victims were not told about the blunder for six years and, by that time, 29 had died.
The Mail has protected the identity of the whistleblower, whose allegations have been confirmed by internal and external investigations and NHS watchdogs. But the trust yesterday named him in a statement published on its website – even though the whistleblower wishes to remain anonymous. Bosses attempted to discredit him by stating that the General Medical Council has placed restrictions on his ability to practice because of ‘allegations of serious misconduct’.
The statement did not mention that the trust made the referral to the GMC. It is standard practice for temporary restrictions to be placed on the licence of any doctor during investigations into a serious complaint.
Last night, the whistleblower said: ‘It is a fantasy that exists in Westminster that whistleblowers are protected. Hospitals will do anything to protect their reputations.
‘I was gagged, repeatedly threatened and ridiculed. The trust is still trying to create an illusion that nothing significant happened to these patients. The treatment they were given causes soreness of the mouth so severe you cannot eat, nerve damage that means you cannot do up buttons or use a knife and fork.

The Daily Mail yesterday revealed how 55 patients aged between 49 and 83 were wrongly exposed to chemotherapy by two doctors between 2005 and 2009 (file picture)
The Daily Mail yesterday revealed how 55 patients aged between 49 and 83 were wrongly exposed to chemotherapy by two doctors between 2005 and 2009 (file picture)

‘Taste disappears, appetite is gone. There is hair thinning and spasms in the voicebox. And all for nothing.’ The Mail yesterday revealed how the chemotherapy was administered in defiance of strict guidelines by oncologists Dr Margaret King and Dr Mark Churn to patients with colorectal cancer.
The standard treatment for this form of bowel cancer is about one month of a combination of chemotherapy and radiotherapy, before a break of about six to 12 weeks and then surgery.
But Dr King, who is originally from Warsaw, prescribed up to 20 weeks of Folfox, a particularly strong form of extra chemotherapy for her patients before the month of standard chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Dr King, 46, and Dr Churn, 52, also prescribed unnecessary chemotherapy in the run up to surgery. The pair are still practising and do not appear to have faced disciplinary action.
In contrast, the whistleblower, after raising concerns in 2009, he was accused of bullying and harassment by Dr King and subjected to a two-year investigation. He was even told he would excluded from an external investigation into the claims.

Police were called to New Cross Hospital in Wolverhampton after someone entered the whistleblowers office and wrote racist graffiti on the wall
Police were called to New Cross Hospital in Wolverhampton after someone entered the whistleblowers office and wrote racist graffiti on the wall
Police were called to New Cross Hospital in Wolverhampton after someone entered the whistleblowers office and wrote racist graffiti on the wall
In June 2012, police had to be called to New Cross Hospital in Wolverhampton after someone entered his office, damaged personal family photographs and wrote racist graffiti on the wall.
He left his job in January 2014 and now works abroad.
Tory MP Andrew Percy, who sits on the health select committee, called on the health secretary to intervene. He said: ‘It is disgusting that the trust has put his name out.’
Tory MP Charlotte Leslie added: ‘The cover-up is unforgivable, and the victimisation of the whistleblower obscene.’
Dr King and Dr Churn declined to comment. A spokesman for the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust said it had not tried to gag the whistleblower. ‘It is normal practice that individuals are instructed to maintain confidentiality around conduct-related allegations under investigation.’

Were you involved or do you know any of the patients involved? Contact investigations@dailymail.co.uk or telephone 0203 615 1759

CQC’s processes leaves exiled whistleblowers in the cold

10 Oct 2015

Subject: Whistleblowers, whistleblowing governance and CQC’s recruitment process

To: David.Behan@cqc.org.uk

To Mr David Behan Chief Executive Care Quality Commission, 10 October 2015

Dear Mr Behan,

Whistleblowers, whistleblowing governance and CQC’s recruitment process

We would like to express our increasing concern at CQC’s recent recruitment approach to key positions that relate to national whistle blowing governance.

Firstly, CQC advertised for the National Freedom to Speak Up Guardian post behind the pay wall of the Sunday Times and it gave a very short deadline for applications. This is not reassuring evidence of openness and inclusiveness, or a desire to find the most suitable candidate. [1]

Secondly, CQC has now advertised for a support post, a “National Guardian Set Up Manager”, but CQC has specifically excluded those not currently employed by the NHS, the Department of Health or the Department of Health’s arm length bodies. [2]

This will clearly exclude many whistleblowers who have been exiled by the NHS and central bodies, despite the fact that many will have precisely the relevant experience and expertise on the core issues.

This seems at odds to good practice principles 12 and 20 of Sir Robert Francis’ report of the Freedom to Speak Up Review:

“Principle 12

Support to find alternative employment in the NHS: Where a NHS worker who has raised a concern cannot, as a result, continue in their current employment, the NHS should fulfil its moral obligation to offer support.”

“Principle 20

Legal protection should be enhanced

Action 20.1: The Government should, having regard to the material contained in this report, again review the protection afforded to those who make protected disclosures, with a view to including discrimination in recruitment by employers (other than those to whom the disclosure relates) on grounds of having made that disclosure as a breach of either the Employment Rights Act 1996 or the Equality Act 2010.”

Indeed such was the scandal of exiled whistleblowers, and the huge waste of personnel resource revealed by Sir Robert’s report, that the government announced its intention to deliver legislation to outlaw the blacklisting of whistleblowers by the end of the last parliament.

As the lead health and social care regulator, CQC can reasonably be expected to model good practice. However, we feel that CQC has failed to do so in its recent recruitment approach to the National Guardian and the National Guardian Set Up Manager posts.

Despite parliament’s wishes, there has still been no practical redress for whistleblowers whose lives have been ruined. Staff who have raised concerns are even today suspended, disciplined and dismissed. People are still suffering the nightmare of lost homes and health, the despair of relying on food banks and the immense stress of persistent uncertainty about the future. These are the realities of NHS black listing.

If CQC does not model good practice in supporting whistleblowers and if it arguably helps to compound their marginalisation, what message does this send to the organisations that CQC regulates?

We ask that CQC reviews its exclusion criteria and that in future it does not disadvantage whistleblowers in its employment processes. Ideally, we would prefer that CQC removes its requirement that the National Guardian Set Up Manager can only be appointed from amongst those currently employed by the NHS, DH and DH arms length bodies.

Patients’ lives depend on genuine action to end the culture of whistleblower persecution.

Yours sincerely,

Minh Alexander
Fiona Bell
Sharmila Chowdhury
David Drew
Narinder Kapur
Maha Yassaie
Gary Walker

cc House of Commons Health Committee
Secretary of State for Health
Shadow Secretary of State for Health
Sir Robert Francis CQC NED

[1] http://appointments.thesundaytimes.co.uk/job/448809/national-guardian/?TrackID=8#sc=rss&me=feed&cm=general

[2] https://www.jobs.nhs.uk/xi/vacancy/c3a226dc02e0f07206a363df1dfddb23/?vac_ref=913930087

NHS spends £1m to keep whistleblower surgeon off work

Daily MIrror  3 Oct 2015    BY SIMON WRIGHT , MARTYN HALLE

 

Liver surgeon Ditya Agrawal, 43, was sent home in 2011 after he spoke out working practices. The Trust has since run up legal bills of at least £250,000 fighting his complaint that he was unfairly treated

NHS bosses spent almost £1MILLION keeping a consultant suspended after he raised patient safety concerns.

Liver surgeon Ditya Agrawal, 43, was sent home on full pay in 2011.

He had spoken out about his fears over working practices at his hospital.

The hospital’s Trust was later placed in special measures over high death rates in the wake of the Stafford Hospital inquiry.

But the Trust has since run up legal bills of at least £250,000 fighting Mr Agrawal’s complaint that he was unfairly treated – and has spent more than £700,000 paying his salary for four years and on locums to cover his absence. A High Court judge ruled in the consultant’s favour when the General Medical Council sought to stop him practising pending a full disciplinary hearing.

But the Trust finally sacked him in May stating “a breakdown in working relationships between you and your colleagues”.

Mr Agrawal has now appealed, claiming he has been fired for speaking out. He is backed by Labour MP Lucy Powell and Tory Sir Peter Bottomley.

 
Sir Peter has supported a number of NHS whistleblowers and claims Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt is not doing enough to help them. He told the Commons recently the East Lancashire NHS Trust that runs the Royal Blackburn Hospital had suspended Mr Agrawal “in retaliation for raising concerns”.

He added: “There is something very fishy and wrong going on”. Mr Agrawal, now at a different hospital, said last night: “I raised concerns about patient safety and working practices. It turned into a nightmare. I want to restore my good name.”

A Trust spokesman said: “The Trust is defending Mr Agrawal’s current claims and, due to ongoing litigation, is unable to comment further.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the pressure is absolutely non-stop.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It just gives you a sick feeling in your stomach.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TICKBOXES THAT DECIDE YOUR FATE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most people who work at 111 find it utterly demoralizing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gabrielle Ali with her son Elijah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elijah now needs constant care

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Manchester Evening News  10 SEPTEMBER 2015
BY TODD FITZGERALD

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chlamydia vaccine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Duty under the law

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

 

CQC response to story in The Independent

Published:
3 September 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chief executive ‘excluded from work’ after whistleblower complaints

HSJ    4 August, 2015 | By

The chief executive and three other senior officers at Southport and Ormskirk Hospital Trust have been “excluded” from work, following whistleblowing complaints.

In a statement today the trust says chief executive Jonathan Parry has been excluded from his role as a “holding action pending the completion of an investigation”. It adds that the exclusion is “not a disciplinary sanction”.

The chief operating officer, human resources director and deputy director of performance have also been excluded.

The statement says: “The exclusions follow an independent external investigation into three separate whistleblowing complaints received by the trust.

“No aspect of the whistleblowing complaints or investigation related to issues of patient care or safety.  

“The four employees are excluded whilst an internal investigation is conducted… The decision to exclude the four employees was unanimously agreed by the chair and the six non-executive directors on the trust board with support from the NHS Trust Development Authority.”

Ann Marr, chief executive of St Helens and Knowsley Teaching Hospital Trust, has been brought in to provide interim leadership for the trust as accountable officer.

She will be supported by Gaynor Hayles, associate director of nursing at the TDA. Both will also continue their current roles.

To view the article log onto HSJ:

http://www.hsj.co.uk/hsj-local/acute-trusts/southport-and-ormskirk-hospital-nhs-trust/chief-executive-excluded-from-work-after-whistleblower-complaints/5089410.article

Why Jeremy Hunt’s promise to protect whistleblowers is nothing but hot air

Our NHS  5 August 2015

MINH ALEXANDER and DAVID DREW

Hunt’s promise to protect NHS staff who speak out about poor care will be easily side-stepped by employers.

Image: Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, Wikimedia

“On high death rates, failing hospitals and whistleblowing, we are calling time on the cover-up culture, and ushering in a new era of transparency”[1]

So promised Jeremy Hunt in February this year.

However, Hunt’s latest moves have shown that his rhetoric is not to be matched by real protection for whistleblowers.

Instead, he’s plumped for local ‘Freedom to Speak Up Guardians’, and a ‘National Guardian’. [2] [3] [4] This is very bad news for whistleblowers and for transparency. There is no evidence base for the Guardian model [5], and in our opinion it has been designed to fail.

The plan now adopted by Hunt was first presented in February’s Freedom to Speak Up Review into NHS whistleblowing. It was published by Sir Robert Francis QC – the man previously hired to report into the failings of care at Mid Staffordshire and to devise a plan to ensure they never happened again.

One of the key findings of the landmark 2013 Francis report into Mid Staffs was that staff were too scared to report poor care. Francis pressed for criminal sanctions against whistleblower suppression. [6]

But disappointingly in his new whistleblowing review, Francis rejected criminal sanctions.

Despite evidence submitted to Francis by hundreds of whistleblowers about determined suppression and “lives being destroyed”, he neutered the Freedom to Speak Up Guardians. In particular the National Guardian, purported back stop for failure of local mechanisms, will not have its own statutory powers, merely an advisory role. Nor will it investigate individual cases, nor review past cases to learn from history.

A further crucial weakness of the National Guardian is that it will not intervene in employment disputes.

…“should not actively intervene in ongoing provider processes or employment disputes” [7]

A key strategy used against whistleblowers is to engineer employment disputes. So employers will easily put cases beyond the reach of the National Guardian.

Employers typically create employment disputes by mistreating whistleblowers to provoke grievances, inventing grounds for disciplinary action or smearing whistleblowers’ mental health and performance. Employers can then proceed to dismissal for misconduct, incapability or break down of relationships (under the “some other substantial reason” clause). Alternatively, employers may rely on redundancy as an exit strategy.[8] [9]

A National Guardian that by design will not investigate or intervene in this highly damaging strategy against whistleblowers is designed to fail. It will provide no meaningful protection. The most that the National Guardian will be able to do is report failing employers to central bodies that have been part of the problem: the Care Quality Commission, Monitor, the Trust Development Authority and NHS England.

The National Guardian would not have protected Raj Mattu, a whistleblowing heart surgeon.

An employment tribunal ruled last year that Dr Raj Mattu was unfairly sacked by the Walsgrave hospital in Coventry after he voiced concerns about poor patient care, including overcrowding and higher than expected death rates.

The trust’s campaign against Mattu was ferocious, according to Andrew Smith in the Guardian:

“Soon, the single complaint against Mattu had become 35, then 200, ranging from questions over his qualifications to charges of serious criminal conduct outside of work. These were sent to the GMC, CQC, the Strategic Health Authority and three different police forces; by 2009, all had been investigated and found to be false. Mattu was also subject to three separate tax inquiries, despite having undertaken no private work. In 2010, ill and suffering from depression, he was finally sacked by managers who questioned the validity of his ailments and found him “unmanageable”.”[10]

Mattu was vindicated by the employment tribunal which described him as blameless. His lawyer commented “it was tragic that his pursuit of safety and the highest standards in care led to him being vilified, bullied and harassed out of a job he loved.”

But the Trust’s pursuance of this protracted and costly employment dispute would have put Mattu firmly beyond the protection of the National Guardian.

The problems don’t stop there. Whilst the office is nominally “independent”, the National Guardian will be hand picked and overseen by the Care Quality Commission, who are firmly under the Department of Health’s thumb. As the National Guardian will not be in post until April 2016 at the earliest, more whistleblower cases will be consigned to the dustbin category of “historic”, and sealed away.

This is all a far cry from an equivalent USA office (Office of Special Counsel). This can independently investigate, remedy employment detriment whilst a whistleblower is in post and litigate if necessary.

The worst NHS organisations have been ignoring good practice guidance for years. The National Guardian office is an irrelevant addition and a waste of public funds. However, it will serve as a smokescreen for suppression by government. Central government bodies chant the mantra “protect whistleblowers” whilst still authorising compromise settlements with super gags, which hide even the existence of settlements.

Last year, some whistleblowers were too scared to participate in the Freedom to Speak Up Review because they were subject to confidentiality clauses.

The Secretary of State pays lip service to aviation-style safety. This requires properly independent investigations, but Robert Francis ignored many calls for a truly independent mechanism for whistleblower governance. His review report is totally silent about the grave nature and scale of the disclosures reported to him. We have also learned that Francis ignored even Simons Stevens, who on behalf of NHS England called for independent investigation, safe harbour and an Ombudsman. [11] Similarly, it is now evident that the Department of Health ignored the Care Quality Commission’s suggestion that the National Guardian could be located with the proposed NHS independent patient safety investigation service (IPSIS).[7]

Independence and full transparency are plainly unwanted and resisted by government. Francis’ complaisance is very disappointing. Last October, at a Freedom to Speak Up seminar that we attended, Francis openly stated that he would only make recommendations that would be accepted. Francis’ review is a comprehensive failure in terms of the duty of care to staff and patients. However, it suits the DH very well.

Over the period of Francis’ review, and since its publication, there has been no diminution in the stream of victimised and sacked whistleblowers. Cases continue to be raised in parliament. However, when whistleblowers approach Jeremy Hunt and the Department of Health for safe haven, they are still told that the Department does not intervene in “employment matters”.

Accordingly, whistleblowers will continue to press for proper learning through a public inquiry, and real measures to protect those who speak up in future. The NHS is under increasing pressure, and staff have many concerns that they need to raise. It is unjust to expect them to sacrifice health and livelihood simply for standing up for patients.

[1] Hunt: Sweeping reforms to end NHS “cover up culture”. Laura Donnelly & Patrick Sawer, Telegraph 7 February 2015

[2] Report of Freedom to Speak Up Review by Sir Robert Francis QC, 11 February 2015

[3] Learning Not Blaming, The government response to the Freedom to Speak Up consultation, the Public Administration Select Committee report ‘Investigating Clinical Incidents in the NHS’, and the Morecambe Bay Investigation. 16 July 2015

[4] National Freedom to Speak Up Guardian, CQC board paper 29 July 2015http://www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/CM071506_Item_6_Freedom_to_Speak_up_National_Guardian.pdf

[5] Critique of Francis’ model of trust appointed Guardians, Minh Alexander 4 June 2015 https://sharmilachowdhury.com/2015/06/21/critique-of-francis-model-of-trust-appointed-guardians/

[6] Francis calls for new protection for whistleblowers. Shaun Lintern, Nursing Times, 11 February 2013

[7] CQC’s submission to DH consultation on implementation of Freedom to Speak Up Review http://twitdoc.com/view.asp?id=211107&sid=4IW3&ext=PDF&lcl=DH-Consult-CQC-20150603-FTSU-DH-consultation-response.pdf&usr=Minh_Alexander&doc=272545800&key=key-8O60eydHWtpxxMI8vznp

[8] 21 Ways to Skin a Whistleblower from Shoot the messenger, Private Eye Special, Andrew Bousefield and Phil Hammond 2011

[9] Thematic Review of 70 cases, by Patrick Green QC et al, submitted on behalf of Patients First to Freedom to Speak Up Review, September 2014

[10] “There were hundreds of us crying out for help”: the afterlife of the whistleblower. Andrew Smith. Guardian 22 November 2014

[11] Letter from Simon Stevens CEO NHS England to Sir Robert Francis QC, 22 September 2014 http://twitdoc.com/view.asp?id=211953&sid=4JJL&ext=PDF&lcl=Simon-Stevens-toRobertFrancis.pdf&usr=Minh_Alexander&doc=272974968&key=key-NEY87NHor4PDtvGrRsyk 

About the authors

Dr Minh Alexander was a consultant psychiatrist and whistleblower. She tweets at@Minh_Alexander.

Dr David Drew was an NHS paediatrician for 37 years before becoming a whistleblower over poor standards of care. He is the author of Little Stories of Life and Death and tweets at@NHSwhistleblowr.

Related Articles

Never again? Jeremy Hunt’s response to the Francis Report is inadequate
ROGER KLINE
Government u-turn on safe nursing levels branded a “betrayal” by Mid-Staffs campaigners
MARK BOOTHROYD
Will private sector secrecy stop the NHS becoming more open?
ROGER KLINE
Key NHS recommendation to “put patients first” rejected by government advisors
CAROLINE MOLLOY
Whistleblowing in the UK – in part, it really is about culture
JULIEN ETIENNE

 

CQC sets details for NHS whistleblower guardian

According to  Will Hazell, HSJ,   31 July, 2015, the Care Quality Commission has set out proposals for how a ‘national guardian’ for NHS whistleblowers should be established.

http://www.hsj.co.uk/5089310.article?WT.tsrc=email&WT.mc_id=Newsletter2

‘Under the CQC’s plans the role will answer to its chief executive, but it also pledged to protect the guardian’s independence and said they would have the freedom to criticise the regulator “if they feel it is necessary”.’

The national guardian will advise whistleblowers and trusts.

‘An “independent national officer” to oversee and review the treatment of NHS whistleblowers was one of the main recommendations of Sir Robert Francis’ Freedom to Speak Up review, published in February. The government said earlier this month the officer would be based in the CQC.’

‘In its board papers this month, the regulator sets out its proposals for how the role, renamed the “national guardian”, should work.’

The guardian would have the following key duties:

  • providing support & advice local NHS whistleblower guardians;
  • sharing good practice and reporting on common themes;
  • advising trusts; 
  • advising staff raising concerns.

The role however, will not have any statutory powers.

The guardian will be able to identify incidences where whistleblowers have not been properly treated and suggest remedies. However, they will not have the power to make trusts comply.

The guardian’s focus will be on concerns arising from their appointment onwards. This does not include historic whistleblowing cases, and would not extend to primary or adult social care.

According to HSJ, CQC plans the post would be appointed and managed by its chief executive. The appointing panel would include representation from NHS England, Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority.

To try to preserve the guardian’s independence, the Guardian would be placed outside the CQC’s executive team. In addition,their reports would not have to be signed off by the CQC.

“This would mean that the national guardian would be free to point out where any arm’s length body had not followed good practice,” the board papers say.

According to Will Hazell, HSJ, the CQC said that because the guardian would be hosted within the organisation, they would have the opportunity to ensure its internal processes are in line with best practice, “avoiding a situation where the national guardian would need to criticise CQC in a report”.

“However, it is important that the national guardian is free to do so if they feel it is necessary”, according to the document. However,  in absence of any statutory power, or the need for Trusts to comply, the effectiveness of the role will be limited.

The guardian, will be appointed by December 2015 and  is expected to be supported by a small team, by April 2016.

For further details visit HSJ on: http://www.hsj.co.uk/5089310.article?WT.tsrc=email&WT.mc_id=Newsletter2

‘Left on the bones of my backside Mr Hunt!’

sharmilachowdhury's avatarSHARMILA CHOWDHURY

By Anonymous whistle bower 28 July 2015

I am a NHS whistle blower. 

I can honestly say that today, I’m  better off Than I was 3 years ago , 2012 my money had run out , I’d been made redundant in 2010 , approx. 18 months after whistle blowing in the NHS . 

There was nothing else to do other than sign on, (claim job seekers allowance) in 2012 Job seekers allowance was 71.00 per week, on top of that my rent (some of the rent was paid as was some of my council tax) Any short fall had to be made up by my son, who was studying via university grant and working when he wasn’t studying. 

Living on £71.00 was to prove to be one of the biggest financial challenges life could bring. 

It was broken down like this :

£10.00 water rates per week taken direct from…

View original post 1,197 more words

‘Left on the bones of my backside Mr Hunt!’

By Anonymous whistle bower 28 July 2015

I am a NHS whistle blower. 

I can honestly say that today, I’m  better off Than I was 3 years ago , 2012 my money had run out , I’d been made redundant in 2010 , approx. 18 months after whistle blowing in the NHS . 

There was nothing else to do other than sign on, (claim job seekers allowance) in 2012 Job seekers allowance was 71.00 per week, on top of that my rent (some of the rent was paid as was some of my council tax) Any short fall had to be made up by my son, who was studying via university grant and working when he wasn’t studying. 

Living on £71.00 was to prove to be one of the biggest financial challenges life could bring. 

It was broken down like this :

£10.00 water rates per week taken direct from benefits 

£2.50 internet put away every week to meet DD payment

£5.00 telephone bill put away every week to meet DD payment

£20.00 gas per week

£15.00 electric per week 

£2.50 TV license

This left me £16.00 per week for toiletries, food, clothes. 

Barriers that stopped me from finding work straight away “I am a NHS whistle blower” 

The very first time in my life ever, I prepared to sign on. I’m looked up and down as if I’m some sort of alien object, I’m told I have an adviser (the idea is they are supposed to help assist you find you work) 

My name is called and I’m asked to take a seat, I hand over my CV, she asks “what have you done to find work? I explain I’ve scoured the Internet, knocked on doors, rang for jobs, that I have left a clear audit trail of job searches, applications. I show her the evidence

I explain I have a degree along with professional qualifications, she comes back to me very quickly and says, “So why can’t you find a job?”

I tell her I’m a whistle blower. That day a glimmer of hope in finding a little help and support left me. The words still echo in my ears “what is a whistle blower?”

Now everyone as their own view as to what is a whistle blower , I try to explain A whistle blower (whistle-blower or whistle blower) is a person who exposes any kind of information or activity that is deemed illegal, dishonest, or not correct within an organisation that is either private or public. 

She wasn’t the least bit interested, her reply was “sign here” 

I quickly learnt especially in winter months, that it could, some weeks, be a case of “eat or heat”

I learnt that some supermarkets reduce their bread and fresh products around 8pm, so I could In fact buy a full weeks shop for much less if I waited until everything was reduced. I’d buy, pasta, baked beans, eggs, as cheap as possible. The market would finish 4 pm on Tuesday’s Friday & Saturday’s , this is when I bought my veg at the very last moment I could get carrots , turnip cauliflowers, leeks, potatoes one big bag full, for a pound.

I learnt that “shy bairn’s get nowt” I’d ask the butcher every week for bones, I would ask the supermarket girls “what time do you reduce your fresh items”

My survival tips were cook one large pan of broth a week (it costs about 2.00 and will last all week) Pasta bought in bulk could be mixed with many things to make many meals. 

I did surveys online (and still do) and always asked for shopping vouchers. I struggled to keep the Internet, to some that might seem a luxury, but it’s absolutely needed to find work, to collect discount codes and coupons. 

I did voluntary work at the citizens advice bureau, they had heated offices 🙂 it meant I learnt, I could help others and my CV wouldn’t have a gap in it. They also had a unlimited supply of tea and biscuits. They do incredible work and taught me “try never to judge” 

In June 2013 almost a year of being classed as unemployed, I’d applied for a job in the private sector.  It was on minimum wage, and bore absolutely no resemblance to my old NHS  job , I didn’t get it, that was no surprise, what was a surprise was two days after being told no , I received a call , the voice told me their first choice left. I was second choice did I want the job? I took it without hesitation. 

Minimum wage was an incredible pay cut, but nowhere near as bad as £71.00 per week. 

It was the stepping stone to getting my life back. 

So I started work, my plan was keep my head down, be nice to everyone and make the best of it. 

In truth I had never stopped working ever, whistle blowing experience led me to others and to campaign work, it also led to a C4 news special, in Sept 2013 I took a day off work, went into London to be interviewed I spoke out about my experiences on behalf of many bereaved families who had lost loved ones in hospitals and whistle blowers.

8pm I came off set and the producer stopped me and asked if I would be OK, and did I realise I’d just outed myself on national TV as a whistle blower, did my new boss know? 

I can honestly say it had never crossed my mind, the next day I went into work 2 hours late, my train from London had been delayed. I had just got sat down behind my desk only to look up and find my boss walking towards me, he was grinning. I looked him straight in the eye and said OK are you going to sack me, he said what? For being a whistle blower? No way. I’ve come over to shake your hand. 

That was Sept 12th 2013 I am still in work 🙂  I wasn’t sacked , I was supported , I still campaign , my life is double sided now , half at a paid job (the job that pays the bills) the rest of my time , campaign work, surviving , helping as much as I can. 

I on one hand have lost so much yet on the other in that process learnt so much. On that journey I have been fortunate to meet incredible people, make new friends,  the person I consider one of my best friends is a journalist who I’m sure I’ll still be working with for many years to come . 

Like many whistle blowers out there struggling I have learnt what it means to be on the bones of my backside it’s not a great position to be in, but it’s survivable 🙂 

Over the past year we had the Francis review, a few weeks ago Jeremy Hunt made this statement.

“Sir Robert confirmed the need for further change in his report today. He said he heard again and again of horrific stories of people’s lives being destroyed because they tried to do the right thing for patients: people losing their jobs; being financially ruined; brought to the brink of suicide; and family lives being shattered. Eminent and respected clinicians had their reputations maligned.

There are stories of fear, bullying, being ostracised, marginalisation as well as psychological and physical harm. There are reports of a culture of “delay, defend and deny” with “prolonged rants” directed at people branded “snitches, troublemakers and backstabbers” and then blacklisted from future employment in the NHS as the system closed ranks.”

Like the Dr’s shouting out “I’m in work Jeremy” There are many shouting out #WearestillhereJeremy! The truth that so many have endured will one day come out…….

The government have yet to provide a real independent solid solution. 

So for all of you still struggling, take every day as it comes and remember all you did was tell the truth, you are not alone, there are many of us….

 

£1.8bn ‘Wasted’ On NHS Redundancy Payments – Sky news

More than 5,500 people made redundant since 2010 are re-employed in the NHS, despite some receiving payments of over £200,000.

Play video

26 July 2015  SKY NEWS    By Jason Farrell, Senior Political Correspondent

The Department of Health has been accused of “spending money like confetti” on NHS redundancy payments.

Figures reveal redundancy payoffs amounted to nearly £2bn during the Government’s restructuring programme over the last five years.

More than 5,500 people who were made redundant since 2010 have been re-employed elsewhere in the NHS, despite some receiving severance payments of more than £200,000.

Since the shake-up, redundancies have cost £1.8bn for more than 44,000 lay-offs and in 2014-15 alone some £220m was spent on payoffs for staff.

Shadow health secretary Andy Burnham told Sky News: “Today the figures hit a new high – £1.8bn wasted.

And what are doctors to make of this? No wonder morale in the NHS is at rock bottom.”

He added: “This was a reorganisation that didn’t need to happen.

“They’ve thrown money at redundancies, given people payoff cheques like confetti at the NHS at a time when we’re not doing right by the staff of the National Health Service.”

The Government has pledged to cap public sector redundancy payments at £95,000 – but the figures show, in the last five years, over 3,000 staff received more than £100,000.

Of those, 475 received amounts above £200,000. All this came while nurses were experiencing either a pay freeze or a below inflation pay cap of 1%.

The Government argues that the controversial restructuring has saved more money than expected and helped reduce bureaucracy by a third, allowing them to employ more frontline staff.

Letter to Jeremy Hunt 2 – Help & Justice for Sharmila Chowdhury

sharmilachowdhury's avatarSHARMILA CHOWDHURY

Please sign the petition DAVID CAMERON. WE WANT JUSTICE FOR SHARMILA CHOWDHURY NHS WHISTLEBLOWER https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/david-cameron-we-want-justice-for-sharmila-chowdhury-nhs-whistleblower

The following letter has been sent to Jeremy Hunt today:

30 May 2014

Rt Hon Mr Jeremy HuntHealth Secretary

Dear Mr Hunt

Re: My case as an NHS Whistleblower

 I have just received the email (attached) from your Special Advisor, Ed Jones.

 To say the letter from Dr Dan Poulter is outrageous is an understatement.  I would have thought that you would have felt somewhat relieved that I was not in receipt of this letter written in February. Instead you decide it appropriate to send it to me via email today. Clearly in support.

 It is scandalous that as the Secretary of State you do not take responsibility for the protection of NHS whistlebowers who are persecuted in hospitals and other settings, for which you are in charge. Instead you choose to…

View original post 714 more words