Whistleblower treatment is often ‘shocking’ says MP’s

3 Comments
BBC News 1.8.14
Staffordshire General HospitalThe report highlighted the role of whistleblowing in the Mid Staffordshire NHS scandal

The treatment of employees in public services who have raised concerns about wrongdoing has often been “shocking”, a group of MPs has said.

The Commons Public Accounts Committee said whistleblowers had often been subjected to bullying and harassment.

Its report called for whistleblowers to be offered legal and counselling services and for “swift sanctions” to be imposed on staff who victimise them.

The government said it was acting to ensure people felt free to speak out.

‘Crucial source’

The report highlighted the “important” role whistleblowers had played in uncovering details about the Hillsborough disaster and the Mid Staffordshire NHS trust scandal.

The Commons Public Accounts Committee said whistleblowing was a “crucial source of intelligence to help government identify wrongdoing”.

However, it found there had been a “startling disconnect” between policies encouraging whistleblowers in theory and what happened in practice.

The report said it had “heard of too many cases of appalling treatment of whistleblowers by their colleagues”.

Officials who tried to raise concerns often had to show “remarkable courage” in coming forward, it added.

The report highlighted whistle-blowing in relation to the Hillsborough disaster, where 96 Liverpool football fans lost their lives at an FA Cup semi-final on 15 April 1989.

Prime Minister David Cameron later apologised for the “double injustice” of the disaster, after an independent report published in 2012 showed police and emergency services had attempted to deflect the blame.

‘Victimised’

It also highlighted the Mid Staffordshire NHS scandal, where staff at Stafford Hospital had blown the whistle on “appalling care” between 2005 and 2008.

The committee heard from Kay Sheldon, a member of the board of the Care Quality Commission, who the report said had been “victimised” by senior officials after she tried to raise concerns about the way it had been operating.

The report said no-one had faced any form of sanction over her treatment.

Labour MP Margaret Hodge, who chairs the committee, said a “positive approach to whistle-blowing should exist wherever the taxpayer’s pound is spent”.

“However, far too often whistleblowers have been shockingly treated, and departments have sometimes failed to protect some whistle-blowers from being victimised,” she said.

“Civil service staff should be given a “route map” of how to highlight issues, while the Cabinet Office should set out “how it will ensure whistleblowing policy and practices receive the strong leadership they need”.

A government spokeswoman said: “All civil servants must be able to raise concerns so that poor services and inefficient operations can be identified and acted upon.

“That is why this government is ensuring people feel free to speak out. Awareness of how to raise a complaint has risen by 20% and two-thirds of civil servants feel that any complaint will be investigated properly.

“In addition, we are ensuring that all departments have a clear whistleblowing policy.”

Francis’ whistleblowing inquiry is just the tip of the iceberg

2 Comments
HSJ

26 June, 2014 | By ,

Disappointingly, the Francis reports have failed to address bullying within the NHS. While the recent launch of an independent review into the treatment of whistleblowers is a step in the direction, Sir Robert has a challenge on his hands

The Francis report, the Keogh review and the Berwick review all emphasised the importance of workplace cultures where staff are supported, treated with respect and are able to raise concerns freely and without fear of bullying.

It should be easy.

‘Sir Robert needs to treat with scrutiny and scepticism the narratives from those responsible for whistleblowers’ treatment’

Health secretary Jeremy Hunt’s decision to commission Sir Robert Francis to lead an independent review into the treatment of historic whistleblowing cases is a helpful first step to examine this issue, though it does not go far enough in the eyes of many campaigners.

Nevertheless it is a step in the right direction, especially if Sir Robert treats with careful scrutiny and scepticism the narratives he will receive from those currently responsible for the treatment of whistleblowers.

Protection premium

He will doubtless be told that things are getting better, that all trusts have good policies and procedures in place, that regulators have improved and that whistleblowers get much better support than they used to.

Indeed, visit the websites of NHS Employers, professional regulators, individual trusts, the Department of Health and even trade unions, and there no shortage of good advice, but real support or protection is still at a premium.

‘There no shortage of good advice, but real support or protection is still at a premium’

Well after the final Francis report, the most recent NHS National Staff Survey, published in February, reported that 71 per cent of staff felt safe raising these concerns, 54 per cent felt confident that their organisation would address them, and only 44 per cent of staff felt they were given feedback on changes made as a result of errors, near misses and incidents.

Research last year analysed 1,000 whistleblowing cases across all sectors received by whistleblowing charity Public Concern at Work and concluded that:

Kim Holt

Kim Holt

“From our research we know that the typical whistleblower is a skilled worker or professional who has been working for less than two years, who is concerned about a wrongdoing that is ongoing, affects wider society and has been occurring for less than six months.

“The concern is raised at the organisation at most twice with line then middle management, and the whistleblower is most likely to experience no response from management (either negative or positive). Where management do respond the most common response is a formal reprisal.

“The most likely response to the concern is that nothing is done. Junior staff are more likely to be ignored than those in senior positions, who are more likely to be dismissed. 

Executives are much more likely to resign – 30 per cent. Where they do not, their position worsens as matters progress, and they are eventually silenced – 50 per cent – or move on – 50 per cent.”

Just the tip of the iceberg

This research found that of those who raised concerns in healthcare, 67 per cent felt their position at work worsened as a result of raising concerns, 11 per cent resigned, 7 per cent decided to say no more and not one employee reported their position had improved.

We have found that too many employers still turn patient safety or other public interest concerns into employment issues, ignore the concerns raised, and victimise the person raising the concerns.

We do not suggest this is what happens to all staff who raise concerns, but none of these are isolated examples as some suggest.

‘The Francis reports did not address the problem of bullying within the NHS’

The high profile cases of Shiban Ahmed, Sharmila Chowdhury, David Drew,Jennie Fecitt, Kim Holt, Ed Jesudason, Narinder Kapur, Raj Mattu, Gary Walker and many others are the tip of an astonishing iceberg.

We were disappointed that the first and second Francis reports did not address the problem of bullying within the NHS.

Patients First believe that a public inquiry into whistleblowing is needed, and we have the deepest concerns about the ongoing victimisation of whistleblowers.

Roger Kline

Roger Kline

If the latest Francis review is to be successful it must understand how the law fails to protect genuine whistleblowers, how bullying responses can silence concerns, and how the broader system needs an overhaul to ensure that there is somewhere for concerned staff to go.

Most importantly, patient safety matters need to be addressed in a timely way, not left to fester in employment courts.

The Health Select Committee was right to say, in its response to the Francis report, that: “Disciplinary procedures, professional standards hearings and employment tribunals are not appropriate forums for constructive airings of honestly held concerns about patient safety and care quality.”

The best trusts are pressing ahead with serious culture change, safety ambassadors and ombudswomen, and real openness and transparency. But too many are simply not yet making those changes.

Almost 18 months after the Francis report we still have a serious amount to do.

Our campaign sadly continues to be needed and will be needed until we no longer hear from traumatised people whose only concern was the safety of patients. That is the challenge Sir Robert faces.

Department fo health to establish an anti-fraud unit

HSJ

25 July, 2014 | By 

The Department of Health plans to establish its own fraud investigation function by poaching senior officers from NHS Protect, shrinking the national body’s size significantly as a result.

 

Internal papers seen by HSJ revealed that the DH expects the new in-house unit to be up and running within three months. Talks between unions representing staff at NHS Protect about the effect of its slimmed down structure have already begun.

According to the papers, the DH’s new unit will support anti-fraud work within both the department and arm’s length bodies such as NHS England. It will also feed information into a fraud error and debt team in the Cabinet Office.

Under the plans the unit will employ 11 staff, including the current managing director of NHS Protect, Dermid McCausland; its head of policy and standards, Martin Wiles; head of NHS security, Mark Richardson; and its special operations project lead, Patrick Nolan.

Two further posts will be ringfenced for existing NHS Protect staff, while the remaining posts are advertised as DH vacancies.

The papers claimed that the only effect on NHS Protect staff will be a change of pay date and “potentially a change of base (but still within central London)”.

The DH expects NHS Protect to continue with a reduced staff structure from October with the number of senior managers halved from six to three.

The department’s own unit will be tasked with a wider role than the one currently carried out by NHS Protect.

It expects to be given a “horizon scanning” role to help the DH and its agency improve their response to “future cross government anti-fraud requirements”.

This will include an “investigative capacity” for “national, large or complex cases that it is not realistic to expect the NHS to take on”.

arrested, crime, punishement, penalised

Fraud is estimated to cost the health service about £5bn a year

It will also cover “non-NHS functions”, the papers stated without specifying what these might include.

The creation of an internal anti-fraud unit in the DH follows its decision to shift the fraud investigation role to NHS Protect in 2003.

The decision to return “certain functions” back in-house aimed to take account of “the context of the new NHS structure”, the papers indicated.

“DH has expressed a wish for the establishment of a small team within DH that has responsibility for anti-fraud work within DH and strategic responsibility for this work across the DH and NHS landscape,” they added.

“People within NHS Protect who currently carry out this work will transfer to the DH with it.”

While the papers do not signal a clear direction for the future of a slimmed down NHS Protect, it stated that the agency will be subject to “some structural changes” and that some staff members will have “revised roles and responsibilities”.

NHS Protect would continue under the umbrella of the NHS Business Services Authority “whilst separate work is undertaken on the longer term options for its organisational placement”, the papers said.

The DH is expecting to make a decision on its future by April 2015.

Keith Blackburn, the NHS Protect officer for the union Unison, said discussions with the DH about the future of the organisation were at an early stage.

“There’s a lot being made about the Health and Social Care Act dictating that the [security] functions have to go to the DH, and the parlour game at the moment is to find where it actually says that [in the act],” he said.

“Our prime concern is to ensure that there’s a continuing, dedicated investment in the security service for the benefits that it brings to the health service and to the public purse.

“It’s a very important service.”

A spokesman for the DH said it would not comment on “leaked documents”.

Meanwhile, NHS England also plans to set up its own counter fraud service, it emerged at its July board meeting.

This will be established with a £1m transfer from its contigency fund.

A spokesman for NHS England said this would not conflict with NHS Protect’s duties because “it does not routinely provide counter fraud services to individual organisations”.

The Christie: Cancer hospital human tissue sale claim probe

1 Comment

21 July 2014 

BBC News Manchester
Christie Hospital in WithingtonThe Christie is coming under scrutiny from three government watchdogs

Related Stories

Claims that human tissue samples from a leading cancer hospital were sold to drugs companies without patients’ knowledge, are to be investigated.

The Human Tissue Authority (HTA) said it will investigate allegations about The Christie Hospital in Manchester raised by MP Rosie Cooper.

The Christie NHS Foundation Trust has denied the claims.

It is also to be examined by two other health watchdogs after whistleblowers’ allegations about poor leadership.

Monitor, which scrutinises NHS trust leadership, and the Care Quality Commission (CQC) will visit The Christie within two weeks.

‘Gagging clause’

Dr Chris Birkett, Head of Regulation at the HTA said: “Following concerns raised by Rosie Cooper MP, the Human Tissue Authority – the watchdog for tissue and organs – is looking into allegations that tissue samples were sold by an NHS trust to pharmaceutical companies, without the knowledge of the patients concerned.”

Ms Cooper, Labour MP for West Lancashire, said: “If that is true it is outrageous.”

Following her written question in the House of Commons, she said: “We can’t get the full statements around that because the employee concerned has signed a gagging clause.”

Rosie Cooper
Rosie Cooper’s concerns have sparked a watchdog’s investigation

A Christie statement said: “The Christie does not sell human tissue samples to pharmaceutical companies.

“Neither would the trust carry out any activity relating to patients without their consent.”

Monitor and CQC representatives will make unannounced visits to the hospital speaking to staff at all levels and looking into some issues raised by the whistleblowers about the organisation’s culture and how it is led.

A Christie spokesman said neither Monitor nor CQC had expressed any concerns about the quality of care at the hospital.

He added: “This visit is not an investigation or an inspection, and has been prompted by concerns raised about the process of whistleblowing at the trust to Monitor and CQC.”

I now have a job – apparently!!

24 Comments

I had first written to Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State in December 2013. He did not respond. I had previously written to Andrew Lansley, twice in 2010. He too did not want to become involved due to ‘ongoing’ employment issue, which should not have been happening in the first place.

I have now written six times to Jeremy Hunt for urgent help into the situation I am facing as a NHS whistleblower. I had won Interim relief hearing as I was able to prove that I was unfairly dismissed due to direct result of whistleblowing. As a result I lost my career, loss of income, suffering from cancer (which many clinicians believe is due to stress) and I am now facing homelessness.

Following letters to Hunt from Sir David Prior, Chairman of CQC, Stephen Dorrell, previous Chair of Health Select Committee and Angie Bray, my MP, I was invited to a meeting with Ed Jones, Special Advisor to Hunt.

After 2 months, I had not received any response. I drafted a  a letter to jeremy Hunt and copied in MP’s and Journalists. I received a phone call the same day from Ed, advising me that they have been looking to help me and now having written the letter in which I had copied in various people, it will be difficult for them to help me. He also forwarded the letter from Dan Poulter as I had complained during the phone conversation that Hunt had not responded.

Following Dan Poulter’s letter, I wrote again to Hunt in 30 May 2014 and had copied in numerous MP’s and 70 journalists as the contrast between public statements and practical support was so sharp. The letter was also put on my website.

In the same afternoon as part of a group of six Whistleblowers Hunt’s office agreed to meet us for a way forward on NHS whistleblowing. The next day I received a phone call from Dr Kathy Mclean, Chief Executive of Trust Development Authority, TDA, to say that she would like to meet with me to discuss my work situation.

I subsequently met with Dr Mclean where it was explained that non foundation trusts, which there were 2 in the area, The Imperial and The West Middlesex, came under their wing. She listened sympathetically, and told me she would look to find me job in these hospitals.

Following a letter to Hunt from Fiona Bell, I was advised by Dr Mclean the next day, that she had spoken to Prof Christopher Harrison, Medical Director at The Imperial, and that he had several posts in his department that were suitable. Although my background is radiology and this is a medical division, I supposed that this is possible as some management skills are transferable.

I went to meet with Prof Harrison on Tuesday 8 July, and I was advised that there were work going on within The Imperial for application into becoming a Foundation Trust. This was scheduled in September this year. So, there was work which was needed and that they were recruiting. There were no job description. What they were offering was a temporary/fixed term post.

This concerned me as once Imperial had achieved their Foundation status, they would no longer be under the control of TDA, and so there wouldn’t be any job security. In addition, my post would no longer be needed. And I might well be redundant again. I asked, if I accepted a fixed term contract (although I could be sacked anytime) what would happen afterwards. I was advised that I would have to apply for any available posts.

Given my 5 years of struggle, I did not want to go through this again, and wanted a permanent solution to my situation. Also, a General Election is due and by the time I’m struggling again, it would probably be over and I had no idea whoever was the Secretary of State then would have the slightest interest in my circumstances.

3 days after I had met with Prof Harrison, I attended court to in Liverpool on Friday 11 July, where the case of Christie Vs Tracy Boylin was underway.  CQC and Monitor are  investigating Christie. To my surprise, Prof Harrison was there as a witness for the Trust. Prof Harrison was The Medical Director at Christies before recently taking up employment with The Imperial.

I wrote again to Hunt, copying in Ed Jones, Roger Kline and Kathy Mclean raising my concerns about the job offer.  To which I have not received any response.

After an inquiry by Fiona Bell, regarding progress on my case, Ed Jones wrote back, ‘I also understand Sharmila has been offered a very good job in the NHS, which is great news.’

It would have been great news for me too, had it been true. Even with a temporary/fixed term contract I could be sacked, which is likely, in view that the Trust was applying for a foundation status due in September, after which I would be surplus to the requirement.

In addition, it was a job that didn’t exist . Just a vague notion that they may find something in dealing with Foundation status. The inspection was due the following month. Yet politicians have been congratulating themselves for job done.

Did Ed or Hunt not read the letter I had sent them? Did they choose to ignore? Were they being ‘sloppy’, or did not care?  Or are they just plain callous, just interested in the election and ensuring the right ‘spin’ to prevent any further questions into my case?

I am not politically minded and don’t favour one party above another. Hunt is the first Health Secretary to grant a review into whistleblowing, after pressure to undertake public inquiry of 6 whistleblowing cases – mine was one of them. Review is an overview rather than in-depth investigation and solution that an inquiry would have offered. It will be skimming the surface, but should nevertheless be helpful.  The Opposition, on the other hand have yet to express their way forward into NHS whistleblowing, which is a serious problem. Patient’s safety is compromised, if staff are too frightened to speak up. We have yet to hear from Ed Miliband or Nick Clegg.

There are some good MP’s, for example, Charlotte Leslie and Rosie Cooper who voice their concerns and act on what they believe is wrong and as such gain huge public support and respect as a result. Maybe others would do well to learn from them.

Despite having lost virtually everything and suffering for nearly 5 years, I have yet to be offered any sustainable practical help.  I have not asked for a huge compensation. This is despite the fact that Department of Health should be held fully responsible for my situation as a whistleblower, by ignoring my repeated plea for help and being made fully aware of the situation.

They also failed to investigate my raised concerns of fraud, for which there has been extensive evidence.

Department of Health ignored me, but went on to assist Ealing Hospital with advice and funding legal costs. I on the other hand, was left struggling after reporting serious concerns. I have asked for:

  1. Urgent financial remedy – so that I do not lose my home with cancer, in form of monthly income (of what I was earning) and pension (backdated) until I retire
  2. Apology from Hunt for my treatment as a whistleblower on behalf of Department of Health
  3. Inquiry into my case

 

As a Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt should certainly have been able to fulfil my request. Wanting financial remedy is not unreasonable request, and should be well within the remit of a Health Secretary.

I find myself the subject of spin. Isn’t it time to behave responsibly and stop the ‘spin’? Think what a good message could be sent to all whistleblowers if I was treated with just a little respect and serious support?

Jeremy Hunt: message to NHS staff about changing culture in NHS

5 Comments

The Secretary of State for Health talks about the latest milestones in his drive to create a more transparent culture across the NHS.

I have spoken many times about my determination to ensure the highest standards of safety and care throughout our NHS. Well, this week we have achieved some major milestones.

Firstly, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published new guidance on safe and efficient nurse staffing levels on hospital wards. The guidance takes account of the best available evidence, draws on the lessons learned in the aftermath of Mid Staffordshire and follows widespread consultation. We have already increased the number of nurses by 4,000 over this Parliament – this guidance will help us be much more scientific about where additional need may lie.

Meanwhile, Professor Sir Mike Richards, the Chief Inspector of Hospitals, has spoken about the significant improvements in almost all of the 11 trusts that were placed into special measures last summer. The lessons learned from the process include the importance of first-class leadership, proper staff engagement and the value of encouraging organisations to openly acknowledge and address failings. The fundamental change in culture, to one where the NHS listens to and acts quickly on what staff and patients say, is making a real difference. Patient care is now both safer and more compassionate.

The progress made in these trusts is a direct result of the dedication and determination of staff who have worked incredibly hard to turn their hospitals round. On behalf of all patients, thank you.

This week we also announced we are going to extend this proven inspection regime to adult social care services, to make sure that some of the most vulnerable people in the country are being looked after properly. I hope this will be welcomed by many of you involved in discharging people from hospitals.

Finally, I would like to add my congratulations to the winners and finalists of the Nursing Times and Health Service Journal’s Patient Safety and Care Awards 2014 announced this week. Everyone involved has been recognised for delivering safe and high quality care for their patients day in day out. They are an inspiration to us all – congratulations!

Surgeon Arjuna Weerasinghe dismissed after complaining about lack of equipment in operating theatre

The Independent 14 July 2014    ADAM LUSHER
Mr Weerasinghe alerted trust to lack of equipment, and also claimed he caught pneumonia working in the trust’s theatres, which he alleged had not been deep-cleaned for years
Weerasinghe raised concerns after being unable to obtain a particular tool to stem bleeding in 2010

A surgeon was unfairly sacked after complaining about the lack of equipment at his hospital, an employment tribunal has ruled

Arjuna Weerasinghe, 50, said he raised concerns at Basildon Hospital in Essex after being unable to obtain a packing wick to stem an extensive bleed while operating on a patient in 2010.

When the patient died three days later, Mr Weerasinghe compiled an incident report to alert Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust to the lack of necessary equipment.

Mr Weerasinghe also claimed he caught pneumonia working in the trust’s operating theatres, which he alleged had not been deep-cleaned for years.

The trust had insisted Mr Weerasinghe was dismissed for gross misconduct in 2012 after hospital bosses claimed he had “misled” them over his illness. But ruling against the trust, the East London employment tribunal noted that Mr Weerasinghe’s disclosures relating to the death of his patient “were a material influence in the decisions… to subject [him] to a disciplinary investigation”.

The case is likely to add to worries about the treatment of NHS whistleblowers, despite Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt demanding that hospital managers stop trying to pressure them into signing gagging agreements.

In a statement on Sunday night, however, the trust seemed to attempt to draw a distinction between the reasons for which disciplinary proceedings started and the reasons for which Mr Weerasinghe was eventually fired.

A spokesman said: “We would like to make it clear that the judge concluded that Mr Weerasinghe was not dismissed for raising issues relating to patient care.”

Addressing claims about cleanliness at Basildon Hospital, the spokesman added: “The trust has made significant improvements to [hygiene] and last month was rated ‘good’ by the Care Quality Commission. The CQC also noted good infection-prevention practices and that hygiene audits completed in theatres showed 100 per cent compliance for the month prior to their visit.”

Surgeon wins fight after NHS cover-up

6 Comments
A hospital doctor who complained about a lack of vital equipment and was later sacked for misconduct is seeking a huge payout
The Sunday Times
Martyn Halle Published: 13 July 2014
  • Arjuna Weerasinghe, who claimed his operating theatre was filthy and lacked vital equipment, says his sacking had ‘crippling effects’Arjuna Weerasinghe, who claimed his operating theatre was filthy and lacked vital equipment, says his sacking had ‘crippling effects’ (Jeremy Young)

A SURGEON is seeking a seven-figure compensation payout after an employment tribunal ruled he was unfairly sacked for gross misconduct after blowing the whistle on poor patient care at a hospital.

Arjuna Weerasinghe, who believes he contracted pneumonia in a filthy operating theatre at Basildon Hospital in Essex, raised concerns in 2010 after vital equipment was unavailable when he performed surgery on a man who died three days later.

It took hospital chiefs 14 months to respond to a coroner’s request for information about the case and an initial internal report was altered to remove a sentence exonerating Weerasinghe of any blame.

The original author was asked by a senior clinician to provide “a ‘quick and dirty’ response”, which the tribunal said was a request to “get rid of the matter quickly and quietly” and motivated by the trust being “concerned about . . . potential exposure to litigation”.

The case will reignite concerns over the bullying of NHS whistleblowers despite Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, demanding last year that efforts by managers to cow them or force them to sign gagging agreements should stop.

Weerasinghe, 50, was sacked in 2012 for gross misconduct for attending job interviews and medical courses at his own expense while off work and receiving sick pay for a chronic chest condition that he believes was a result of the pneumonia he contracted at the hospital.

He had, however, told managers about most of the engagements, provided regular updates about his health and dealt with paperwork about patients from home.

The decision to sack Weerasinghe was made by Dr Chanaka Karunaratne, the hospital’s clinical director for surgery. He refused to read a three-page report from Weerasinghe’s GP before the disciplinary hearing, arguing that it would have taken 30 minutes to do so.

The tribunal, which issued its judgment last month, rejected the argument put forward by Karunaratne as “so illogical as to lack any credibility” and said his evidence to it had “changed regularly and in many cases was simply not credible”.

In the same year that Weerasinghe raised concern with his bosses over the lack of packing wick — surgical gauze used to stem bleeding — during the operation on the man, Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trustwas named by the Care Quality Commission, the health regulator, as one of 25 trusts in need of urgent investigation over high mortality rates. It was recommended that it be taken out of special measures only last month.

Weerasinghe, who was denied access to an ill-health retirement pension because he had been fired, said: “I firmly believe the patient would have survived if we had had the [packing] wicks. I was shocked we had none in theatre and was appalled to discover there were actually none in the hospital.”

A coroner ruled that the 61-year-old man died from a “recognised complication of a necessary surgical procedure” but did not mention the absence of the packing wick.

A spokesman for the Essex coroner, Caroline Beasley-Murray, said this weekend that she was examining changes to the internal reports. “She is aware of the concerns that have been raised,” he said.

Weerasinghe says that his patient’s family deserve the truth. “I believe his death was avoidable. It was distressing and I am still not sure his family, who were asking questions, know the full circumstances of their father’s death,” he said.

The tribunal also heard how hospital staff complained in November 2010 that walls in operating theatres had not been cleaned for 16 months. One surgeon believed that “financial considerations may have delayed the wall washing”.

The east London employment tribunal said in its judgment that the disclosures relating to the death of Weerasinghe’s patient “were a material influence in the decisions . . . to subject [him] to a disciplinary investigation”.

Weerasinghe said: “It has been a very difficult time for me and my family. The extreme efforts made by individuals at Basildon Hospital over the past four years towards tarnishing my credibility, reputation and professional career has had crippling effects. I believe these individuals are being safeguarded at the expense of patients, despite . . . the coroner being provided with altered evidence, [which] is worrying.”

His lawyer, Arpita Dutt, said: “The judgment . . . exposes a lack of credibility, arrogance and manipulation of processes that have led to unanswered questions around the death of a patient.”

The hospital trust said it was taking advice about whether there were grounds to appeal and claimed the tribunal concluded that Weerasinghe was not dismissed for raising issues relating to patient care. It said: “Clearly there are lessons to be learnt and we will be conducting an internal review.”

Now police called in over whistleblower’s claims of a ‘cover-up’ at the top of the NHS that led to deaths

The Daily Mail

PUBLISHED: 23:50, 11 July 2014 | UPDATED: 00:24, 12 July 2014

  • Police are investigating claims made by NHS whistleblower Gary Walker
  • Allegations said to implicate former and serving senior NHS managers
  • Lincolnshire Police have confirmed they are investigating

By CLAIRE ELLICOTT

PUBLISHED: 23:50, 11 July 2014 | UPDATED: 00:24, 12 July 2014

Gary Walker, a former NHS chief executive turned whistleblower who raised fears that a Labour drive to meet targets compromised safety

Police are investigating whistleblower Gary Walker’s claims of a ‘cover-up’ at the top of the NHS that led to deaths, the Mail can reveal.

The allegations implicate several former and serving senior NHS managers who could now be interviewed in the inquiry.

Mr Walker was dismissed from his job as chief executive of United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust in 2010 after raising fears that a Labour drive to meet targets compromised safety. He claims a £500,000 taxpayer-funded gagging order was used to stop him speaking out.

Last year, after the trust he ran and several others were warned about high mortality rates, he broke his silence in the Mail.

It is understood that the former chairman of the trust, David Bowles, has also spoken to police about his concerns over safety.

Lincolnshire police yesterday confirmed they were investigating. Earlier this year Karl  McCartney, Conservative MP for Lincoln, asked police to look into Mr Walker’s story.

He included a letter sent by Mr Walker on October 28, 2013, to former health secretary Andy Burnham. In it, Mr Walker alleges he told former NHS head Sir David Nicholson of his concerns about patient safety, but these were not addressed. Sir David insists that he took appropriate action. The letter also claims Sir David’s right-hand woman.

More…

 

Dame Barbara Hakin, who is still in post, oversaw a dangerous target culture. Last year, she was cleared by the General Medical Council of acting in a ‘bullying’ manner and disregarding patient safety.

Mr Walker’s letter alleges that Mr Burnham must have known of his concerns and the gagging order, something Mr Burnham denies.

Former health secretary Andy Burnham, pictured, whose spokesman says he has not been spoken to by police

 

It refers to a ‘cover-up that led to patients dying’ and says scandals at Mid Staffordshire and United Lincolnshire NHS trusts were the result of ‘either political cover-up or because you were deliberately misled’ by civil servants.

Lincolnshire police said: ‘We have received  a report connected to United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust. Inquiries are being conducted into this report, as is standard practice.’

A spokesman for Mr Burnham said he had not been spoken to by police. A spokesman for United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust said it was not able to comment on an ongoing investigation but would ‘co-operate fully’ with the inquiry and any requests from police.

I was held prisoner at The Christie: Former hospital director in £300k damages claim tells court

Manchester Evening News
Tracy Boylin, the former human resources director at the Withington cancer centre, alleges that she was imprisoned in 6ft x 10ft room for hours during a fiery meeting
Tracy Boylin

A former director of The Christie has told a court how she was imprisoned in a room and subjected to a verbal onslaught at the hospital.

Tracy Boylin, who was human resources director at the world-renowned cancer treatment centre in Withington, Manchester, alleges she was harassed over two months by an external HR consultant.

She has started proceedings against the hospital at Liverpool High Court where she is seeking damages of £300,000.

Ms Boylin, 49, from Bolton, claims she was kept in a 6ft by 10ft room by external consultant Christine Pilgrem, who had been brought in to review the trust’s top management.

She claims she suffered a stress-related, psychiatric injury as a result.

The former director alleges she was bullied and subjected to verbal abuse on five occasions between September and November 2010.

Matters came to a head on November 10, when the two women met to iron out ongoing issues between them and during which the alleged ‘imprisoning’ took place.

Christine Pilgrem

 Under cross-examination by David Eccles, representing the hospital, Ms Boylin accepted that she had met with Ms Pilgrem from 9.30am to 5pm that day, breaking off to attend a directors’ meeting in a different room.

Ms Boylin claims she was ‘imprisoned’ during both her meetings with Ms Pilgrem.

She told the court: “She stood up, towered over me and said ‘You are going ****ing nowhere and don’t **** with me’.

“It was not a normal situation. You don’t expect that to happen.”

Mr Eccles asked: “Did she stand in front of the door?”

Ms Boylin said: “Yes, she was blocking the exit.”

The claimant said she sat down as she felt her legs ‘going’ during a ‘heated’ 20-minute exchange. She added: “It was like someone turned switches off inside me”.

The Christie hospital

 Mr Eccles said Ms Boylin had later told her GP, a psychologist and an occupational health expert that she was ‘locked in the room all day’.

Ms Boylin said: “You can’t go if she won’t let you. You are locked in.”

Ms Pilgrem, who no longer works for the hospital, denies any wrongdoing.

Lawyers for the hospital argue that the exchange between the two women did not constitute harassment.

The hearing is expected to last a week.

Parliament – complaints and raising concerns

Committee Room 15

Meeting started on Tuesday 8 July at 2.40pm. Ended at 5.23pm

Complaints and Raising Concerns Witnesses

  1. Dean Royles, Chief Executive, NHS Employers, Rob Webster, Chief Executive, NHS Confederation, Chris Hopson, Chief Executive, Foundation Trust Network
  2. Dr Daniel Poulter MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, Department of Health, Jane Cummings, Chief Nursing Officer for England, NHS England

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=15732

NHS ‘falling short on complaints handling’

Leave a comment

8 July 2014 

BBC News

By Nick TriggleHealth correspondent, BBC News

Nurse with patientsThe Which? survey shows there is still a long way to go on complaints handling

Related Stories

The NHS still has a long way to go to improve the way it handles complaints, although there are signs of improvement, a survey suggests.

The NHS has been heavily criticised over its complaints system in the wake of the Stafford Hospital scandal. The poll of 4,000 people in the UK by Populus for consumer group Which? found just a quarter were happy with the way their complaint had been handled. But this was a rise from 16% two years ago. The survey showed more than half felt their complaint had been ignored – more than in other parts of the public sector – and 43% were “dissatisfied” with the outcome. But four in 10 who have had a problem reported not even complaining – although this was again a slight improvement on the picture two years ago. Improving complaints handling was one of the central themes of the public inquiry into the poor care at Stafford Hospital. ‘Simply unacceptable’ A government-commissioned inquiry into complaints last year – led by Labour MP Ann Clwyd – said too many patients found the current approach unresponsive and confusing. In response, hospitals were ordered to publish regular updates on complaints and make it clearer to patients what they had to do when they were unhappy with their care. While these measures applied to England only, ministers in Scotland and Wales are also making improvements.

Doctor

Many of these changes are only just bedding in, but Which? executive director Richard Lloyd said the survey showed the reforms were “beginning to have an effect” although more needed to be done. Health Minister Dr Dan Poulter agreed the poll was a “positive sign” that standards were improving in England. “We want a culture of openness in all our hospitals,” he added. But Katherine Rake, chief executive of Healthwatch England, said: “It is simply unacceptable that more than half of people who make complaints still feel like they are being ignored. “If the health and social care system is serious about driving patient-centred improvement then the complaints system needs to be radically simplified.” Earlier this year, the patient watchdog produced a report showing thatmore than 70 organisations were involved in complaints handling in the NHS and social care systems. Have you had recent cause to register a complaint over NHS treatment? How was the complaint handled? You can email your experiences to haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk, using the subject line ‘NHS complaints’.

Independent review planned to protect whistlebowers

Ealing Gazette

Sir Robert Francis QC will lead an independent review of policy to protect and support NHS staff who speak up, following a meeting with a former Ealing hospital worke

Sharmila Chowdhury – NHS whistleblower
An independent review will be undertaken to protect NHS staff who speak out, after whistleblowers related their stories to Jeremy Hunt.
Sharmila Chowdhury, 54, of Ealing, was one of six people who met with the secretary of state for health and the head of the NHS Simon Stevens on June 19 . The review should begin in the next couple of months and is to be completed in November (2014).
Miss Chowdhury reported two consultants for allegedly working at a private hospital when they were supposed to be working at Ealing Hospital on regular occasions between 2006 and 2009. She received a letter from Mr Hunt after the meeting.
Jeremy Hunt

  The Health Secretary said the meeting was an important opportunity to hear testimonies and witnesses’ determination to bring about a crucial task: fundamentally changing the NHS culture so workers feel safe enough to raise concerns.

Mr Hunt said in his letter dated June 24: “I have been reflecting on what we heard and the ideas discussed at the meeting and have decided to ask Sir Robert Francis QC to lead an independent review of policy to protect and support NHS staff who speak up. “Sir Robert will consider what can be done to ensure that, if NHS whistleblowers are mistreated in the future, there are appropriate remedies for them and accountability for those mistreating them.”
Miss Chowdhury said: “It’s not a solution but it’s a way forward- at last they are doing something and it could be that whistleblowers are protected to a certain degree but they need to be looking at individual cases and putting in the correct measures.“Unfortunately, it’s not a public inquiry as we asked for however it’s a step in the right direction.”
Miss Chowdhury worked for the NHS for 30 years and has been fighting for a positive outcome to her case since 2009 when she first made the fraud allegations. The 54-year-old was dismissed from Ealing Hospital when counter fraud allegations were made about her and despite being cleared in a hearing, did not get her job back.
A spokesman for Ealing Hospital NHS Trust said: “The trust does and will support any development that enhances openness and transparency in the NHS.”

Provider ordered to pay whistleblower £80k

3 Comments
HSJ

4 July, 2014 | By 

A whistleblowing nurse has been awarded £80,000 by an employment tribunal that found she was unfairly dismissed after suffering “detriment” for making protected disclosures over patient safety concerns.

 

Elaine Fernandez won the case against Allied Healthcare Group, a provider of nursing services across the UK.

The tribunal described Ms Fernandez as a “dedicated and hardworking” member of staff who was seen by Allied Healthcare as a “troublemaker” who threatened its commercial interests.

Since the ruling, the group has introduced a new governance model, whistleblowing regime and made a number of new senior appointments, including a medical director, a director of nursing and several regional heads of nursing.

Ms Fernandez began raising concerns about the safety of her patient in October 2011 with an email to Hywel Dda, a local health board in Wales that commissioned Allied to provide nursing services and had decided her patient should be cared for by healthcare assistants.

The confidential email, which argued that her patient could not be properly cared for by HCAs because they lacked the skills needed, was forwarded by the board to her managers at Allied Healthcare hours later.

She was threatened with disciplinary action the next day, according to the tribunal ruling.

Ms Fernandez received several further warnings from her managers for continuing to note her concerns in her patient’s logbook.

At one stage she was suspended without pay for not attending a meeting while on holiday, despite informing managers of the reason for her absence.

Her managers also attempted to encourage the patient’s husband to lodge a complaint against Ms Fernandez.

Allied Healthcare finally removed her from her patient’s care package in September and offered her no further work, despite vacancies being available.

The tribunal ruled that Ms Fernandez had been unfairly dismissed and had suffered “numerous detriments” as a result of her whistleblowing.

Keyboard

An email documenting Ms Fernandez’s concerns for her patient was forwarded to her managers

Her “sole motive” for speaking out had been to “protect the safety and welfare” of her patient, it added.

Ms Fernandez told HSJ: “Whistleblowing is traumatic, but it’s not something you have a choice about.

“In my case I didn’t have a choice because I knew the patient was at risk from staff who were not properly trained and that they would be coming back.

“When you are not listened to about patient safety concerns it is really hard and you feel a sense of despair about the whole system. The whole experience was traumatic.”

A spokesperson for Allied Healthcare said: “We have new systems to enable our colleagues to raise concerns of any kind, with new processes and protections that we believe are now the best in the sector.

“We are confident these will ensure this situation could not reoccur.

“There were some areas where the tribunal felt we could have done more to support the nurse in question during this change.

“Ultimately in this case both parties wanted to make sure the patient got the right care, however the change process could have been made much clearer.

“We now spend more time explaining change to our workers and helping them through it.”

Cherry Tree House did not meet ‘minimum’ standards of care, report finds

Leave a comment
Marie-Louise ConnollyBy Marie-Louise ConnollyBBC News NI Health Correspondent
Cherry Tree House nursing homeThe report also heavily criticised health regulators the RQIA

Related Stories

A County Antrim nursing home consistently failed to comply with regulations and meet minimum standards of care, an independent review has found.

The review into Cherry Tree House nursing home, in Carrickfergus, was triggered after a whistleblower revealed issues with patient safety.

She said her concerns were repeatedly ignored by health professionals. Health regulators the RQIA were also heavily criticised in the report. The report said the RQIA should have taken a more rigorous approach with the owners of Cherry Tree Nursing Home.
According to the authors of the report, the RQIA’s failure to use the information presented to them led to fundamental aspects of care not being reported. The report recommended the RQIA appoint lay assessors. It also said the RQIA should ensure proper employment controls are in place to prevent certain members of staff, whose actions have already been questioned, from being able to move freely between homes.
The whistleblower, who first approached the BBC with her story in 2012, said she was delighted with the report. Persistent warnings“This is for all whistleblowers. I’m very happy with what the independent team has said.”

“However no one is held to account. That is wrong. After all the whistle-blower lost her job.”

Aidan HannahPatient’s First

The whistleblower who was a care worker at the home for several years eventually lost her job.

“I feel exhausted, but at last someone has listened to me. I’m delighted, it’s thorough and hopefully it is the start of something bigger,” she said.

The report vindicates the whistleblower’s allegations including that her persistent warnings were repeatedly ignored, including by the regulator and managers in the home over several years. The review team confirm that allegations of poor practice should have been acted on a lot sooner, especially on poor care standards, nutrition, staffing and continence care.
A statement from the owner of Cherry Tree Nursing Home, Jennifer Tracey, said: “The review into how the Department of Health, the Health and Social Care Board, health and social care trusts, and the RQIA handled any complaints or whistleblowing concerns about Cherry Tree House between 2005 and 2013 has indicated the need to strengthen and improve the current regulatory processes. “While the report’s recommendations do not deal with Cherry Tree House specifically, we recognise there is much in the report we can learn from and it provides useful insight into our own shortcomings. “We will carefully study the entire document for the lessons we can take from it. “In the meantime, we continue to be committed to working with our regulators to ensure we meet the standards our residents expect and deserve, and also to support stronger and improved regulatory processes, where they improve the nursing and residential home care for older people.”
‘Surprised’The report also recommended that the RQIA consider how it can effectively ascertain the views of residents families and staff during inspections and that it should review its enforcement policy and procedures in light of developments in other jurisdictions.
The independent team was critical of some aspects of how the regulators carried out inspections, with some members of staff describing the practice of announced inspections as a waste of time. Patient’s First Northern Ireland, who represent whistleblowers, described the report as “extensive” but was critical that no one was held to account. Spokesperson Aidan Hannah said: “We have been let down so many times in the past, that we are actually surprised that the report is so extensive.
“It supports the whistleblower in this case and is highly critical of the regulators. “However no one is held to account. That is wrong. After all the whistleblower lost her job.” Stewart Dickson, an MLA for the area, said the report highlighted the need for reform of how nursing homes are regulated.
“The overwhelming number of recommendations shows the scale of reform that is required to ensure that we have robust inspection procedures and enforcement mechanisms in place,” he said. “The report directly refers to the system in Wales, which does not tolerate repeated failures affecting the care of nursing home residents.”

More on This Story

Related Stories

Protecting whistleblowers must be at the heart of NHS change

Leave a comment

HSJ   30 June, 2014 | By 

Recent whistleblower cases have shown that there are brave souls in our healthcare system who are willing to raise the flag on bad practice. Amanda Pollard, a former Care Quality Commission inspectorcriticised the regulatory body for prioritising paperwork over care standards inspection during the Mid Staffordshire public inquiry and an anonymous doctor highlighted Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells Trust’s failure to act on staff concerns about surgeons performing key hole surgery for upper gastro intestinal cancer.

‘All too often whistleblowers are whistling in the wind’

However, their experiences suggest that all too often whistleblowers are whistling in the wind if there is no genuine desire in an organisation to learn from the exposed wrongdoing, and use it to improve the services they provide.

The brush off

To be fair, Ms Pollard’s criticisms were accepted by both the inquiry team and the CQC’s new management.  Yet, within a year she quit her job claiming she was forced out. She lost her claim of unfair dismissal at an employment tribunal. The Maidstone doctor described how he and colleagues were “brushed off” and no action was taken. In fact the trust did not investigate the surgeons’ practices until five patients died in 2012-13, and even then it was only after the start of an investigation that surgery was suspended, and considerable time elapsed before Maidstone shared the official report with the families of the dead patients – in April – and made the report public – last month.

‘The very fact the doctor wanted to remain anonymous speaks volumes in itself’

Both these recent examples suggest medical practitioners who are concerned about colleagues’ actions are an invidious position. As the anonymous doctor described it, the blame game is often still at work. The very fact he wanted to remain anonymous speaks volumes in itself and emphasises just how much change is still needed within the NHS to protect patients from a situation like this ever arising again. The vast majority of healthcare workers are committed to treating and caring for their patients in the best possible way.

Stop the blame game

Part of this vocation inevitably triggers a crisis of conscience when they identify poor or substandard care. Concerns raised by practitioners in such circumstances should be dealt with fairly and openly, moving away from a culture of individual blame to organisational responsibility that encourages all practitioners to have a voice. Our healthcare standards campaign aims to promote accountability, rather than blame, in the NHS. For many years we have called for a duty of candour as a way of the NHS identifying mistakes in an open and accountable fashion that will lead to improvements in patient care. Collective turning away from uncomfortable truths is, fortunately, no longer acceptable within the NHS.

‘Systems to support and protect whistleblowers through the process seem to be lagging behind the rhetoric’

We are heartened to see that the Nursing and Midwifery Council is now acting on the recommendations of Sir Robert Francis in the Mid Staffordshire inquiry. The current consultation on its new code of practice anticipates nurses or midwives with leadership responsibilities will ensure those they manage are protected from any adverse consequences following a concern being raised. This is to be welcomed. However, these recent cases illustrate that positive change is patchy, and that we are in a curious hinterland where whistleblowers are told they will be protected and clinical staff are encouraged to exercise their duty of candour, but the systems to support and protect them through the process seem, in some places, to be lagging behind the rhetoric. The CQC and the NHS are in the full glare of the public eye now and need to get their house in order quickly if public trust is not to be irreparably damaged. Protecting practitioners brave enough to raise alarms must be at the heart of driving change in the NHS and, ultimately, protecting patients. Kate Rohde is partner and head of healthcare standards practice at law firm Kingsley Napley LLP

 

BMA sues whistleblower surgeon

6 Comments

HSJ

30 June, 2014 | By 

The British Medical Association is suing a whistleblowing surgeon for legal costs of up to £250,000 following the collapse of a High Court battle.

Consultant paediatric surgeon Edwin Jesudason made protected disclosures about the surgery department at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital Foundation Trust in 2009 and said the BMA acted against his wishes to settle the case in 2012.

Mr Jesudason won a High Court injunction in July 2012 to prevent the trust dismissing him but the case collapsed in December that year when the BMA claimed he ignored the advice of its legal team and shared information with third parties. A compromise agreement offered to Mr Jesudason by the trust before the case collapsed demanded that he destroy documents including letters which he said exposed false claims made against another whistleblowing surgeon, Shiban Ahmed, at Alder Hey.

 

Instead, Mr Jesudason shared the documents with the Care Quality Commission, Mr Ahmed and the campaign group Patients First, which were subsequently published in Private Eye.

Mr Jesudason claims he did inform the BMA he was sharing information with third parties. As a result the BMA pulled out of the case which caused it to collapse. The association is now pursuing Mr Jesudason for its legal costs.
If the BMA wins, Mr Jesudason told HSJ he would face bankruptcy. Mr Jesudason said: “The trust offered me a six figure sum to go quietly which I refused. I just wanted matters investigated. “Days before we sought to make the injunction permanent and against my express wishes, my BMA lawyers tried to get an even bigger pay-off in return for destruction of the concealed evidence about Mr Ahmed.
“I have not slept under a roof of my own since 2012, and the BMA is now suing me for £250,000 and has agreed to spend the same again to retrieve this. “If they win it would render me insolvent.” Mr Jesudason said he was encouraged by the support he received at the BMA’s annual representative meeting last week, where he received a standing ovation from some delegates.
The meeting called on health secretary Jeremy Hunt to hold a public inquiry into whistleblowing and to explore how the BMA could offer more support to whistleblowers. A BMA spokesman said: “The BMA has previously provided Mr Jesudason with individual help, advice and support in relation to matters relating to his employment. “This has included securing a court injunction to prevent his trust from holding a meeting at which he would have been dismissed. “It was Mr Jesudason’s subsequent actions which led to the collapse of the High Court case. “He did not follow advice provided by the legal team instructed to represent him and shared confidential information externally while assuring his legal team that he had not done so. “This is a regrettable situation and we are glad that a date for mediation has now been set for later in the summer to seek to resolve the situation.”

Officials to probe Midland whistleblower’s claim he was hounded out of NHS

4 Comments
Birmingham Post 26 June 2014
  • By Ben Hurst

Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt announces  independent probe to ‘boost safety and transparency and openness

Whistleblower Dr David Drew
A Midland whistleblower who claims he was hounded out of the NHS after highlighting concerns has been told his case will be examined in a review.
Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt has announced an independent probe to “boost safety and transparency and openness” in the NHS. The move follows a string of cases where people who have highlighted serious failings have been hounded out of the health service.
Mr Hunt said Sir Robert Francis would be chairing the review and it would provide advice and recommendations “to ensure NHS workers can speak up without fear of retribution”. He said: “The review will also look at how we can ensure that where NHS whistleblowers have been mistreated there are appropriate remedies for staff and accountability for those mistreating them.” It was estimated, he added, that 12,000 deaths a year in hospitals had a 50 per cent chance or greater of being prevented.
Mr Hunt said: “In the Government’s response to Sir Robert Francis’s public inquiry on poor standards of care at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, I made clear our determination to make the NHS the safest and most open healthcare system in the world. So today all hospital trusts around the country will receive an invitation to sign up to safety.”
Janet and Dr David Drew
Janet and Dr David Drew

 

Dr David Drew, 66, a paediatrician whose 37-year career was ruined after he voiced concerns about bullying and staff shortages who is also a Christian, was targeted when he emailed a prayer to colleagues at Walsall Manor Hospital, hoping it would be motivational. An investigation was started and a review panel told him to “keep his religious beliefs to himself”. When he refused to accept the findings, he was sacked from the hospital where he worked as a clinical director.

He said: “I was told that my case will be one of a small number that will be examined in the review. This follows a meeting that I had with Jeremy Hunt and Simon Stevens last week as part of a group of six NHS whistle-blowers who had been dismissed and Dr Raj Mattu. “I understand that the purpose of the review is to consider what further action is necessary to protect NHS workers who speak out in the public interest and help to create the kind of open culture that is needed to ensure safe care for patients. My only comment is: About time!”
Walsall Manor Hospital, in Walsall
Walsall Manor Hospital, in Walsall
 

Getting whistleblowers back to work

 

Good morning all,
My reason for writing to all is to ask that you all get behind a very simple campaign, all I ask is that your willing to have your name added to the attached letter in support of whistle blowers.
I’d ask that you share this email amongst as many as possible in order to get as much support as possible for brave people whom have spoken out often at great personal cost to themselves in order to protect others.
Kind Regards
Fiona Bell

Jeremy Hunt: Message to NHS staff on strengthening patient safety

The Secretary of State for Health talks about a number of new initiatives launched this week to strengthen patient safety in the NHS.
Last week the respected Commonwealth Fund ranked the UK as the best healthcare system in the world. We can all be particularly proud of the fact we moved from seventh place to first for patient-centred care and also came top for safety.
This is down to the hard work and dedication of everyone who works in the NHS. But we can do even better. We know from other areas where there is a risk of harm – like the airline industry – that safety depends on staff being confident that they can point out problems.
Still today too many staff in the NHS feel they can’t speak up or that nothing will happen if they do. So this week I’ve launched a new package of measures to help change things for the better. First, Sir Robert Francis is leading an independent review into how we can create an open and honest reporting culture in the NHS. As part of that, he will look at what further action is necessary to protect individuals working in the NHS who speak out against unsafe practice or unfair treatment.
Sir Robert wants to hear from frontline staff, trade unions and NHS employers amongst others. Information about how you can do this will be made available shortly on the Whistleblowing in the NHS: independent review webpage.
I would like to encourage you to get involved with the review: I know that Sir Robert is keen to hear from as many people as possible, and to ensure that a wide range of views and experiences help to shape his conclusions.
The review would also like to hear from you if you have evidence of good practice regarding concerns raised and action taken to make improvements. This week also saw the launch of the new “Sign up to Safety” campaign, under the leadership of Sir David Dalton, Chief Executive of Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust. Twelve trusts have already signed up and many more will follow. Find out more about the campaign and how you and your organisation can get involved.
Finally, in a world-leading drive on transparency, the NHS has published a swathe of safety data – including staffing levels and ‘open and honest reporting’ – for adult and paediatric hospital wards, including mental health and community hospitals. The data has been published on a new safety section on NHS Choices and will give you and your patients the chance to see how well you are doing on some key safety measures.
Focusing on safety is about focusing on things that matter to staff. So I am confident that in harnessing the talent and enthusiasm across the NHS, we will help make enduring changes to improve safety, halve avoidable harm and halve the costs of harm. Most importantly it will make a positive difference to the people we care for – and potentially save 6,000 lives over the next three years. None of this can happen without you – so I do hope that you will give your support to the important changes announced this week.