Hunt vows to punish NHS bullies

5 Comments
The Times 25 June 2014

 

Sharmila Chowdhury exposed two doctors who were moonlighting The Times

Oliver Moody and Chris Smyth
Published at 12:01AM, June 25 2014
Jeremy Hunt has launched an independent review into whistleblowing in the NHS that will be led by the QC who ran the Mid Staffs inquiry.The health secretary pledged to protect NHS staff who speak out after a campaign led by six of the country’s best-known whistleblowers.
The review will be chaired by Sir Robert Francis, QC, whose report into the Mid Staffordshire scandal led to soul-searching in hospitals nationwide. Mr Hunt said the review would ensure that “where NHS whistleblowers are mistreated there are appropriate remedies for staff and accountability for those mistreating them”.
His announcement was welcomed by the six whistleblowers.Sharmila Chowdhury, who lost her job and may lose her home after whistleblowing at her NHS trust, said she was “the happiest girl in the world”.
Mark Porter, the chairman of the British Medical Association, said it would be a challenge to make sure that openness was seen “as a good thing in itself”.
The health secretary told The Times that doctors had become complacent about patient safety in some ways. As part of a wider effort to eliminate medical blunders, he wants patients to be shown an airline-style safety video when they go into hospital.
He said that after the Francis Report safety was recognised as as big a problem as compassion yet 5 per cent of hospital deaths in the NHS were avoidable.

Whistleblowing in the NHS: independent review

3 Comments
‘Freedom to speak up?’ is an independent review into creating an open and honest reporting culture in the NHS.

Contents

  1. Terms of reference
  2. Confidentiality
The review, chaired by Sir Robert Francis QC, will provide independent advice and recommendations to ensure that:

  • NHS workers can raise concerns in the public interest with confidence that they will not suffer detriment as a result
  • appropriate action is taken when concerns are raised by NHS workers
  • where NHS whistleblowers are mistreated, those mistreating them will be held to account.

The review will consider independent mediation and appeal mechanisms to resolve disputes on whistleblowing fairly. The review will engage closely with individual NHS workers who say they have suffered detriment as a result of raising legitimate concerns, as well as with employers, trade unions, professional and system regulators and professional representative bodies.

Terms of reference

Read Terms of reference (PDF, 71.7KB, 1 page) The review will not re-open a case or comment upon any judicial findings. Advisors from the NHS and other fields chosen for their experience and knowledge in the relevant areas will support the review. The review will complete its work by the end of November 2014.

Confidentiality

The review shortly intends to put in place protocols regarding the evidence that it requests and receives. Until then, the review cannot offer clarity about the extent to which the confidentiality of any information received by it can be maintained. In light of this, at the present time those who want to offer information or evidence to the review may wish to restrict the information they give to their contact details and to identifying in non-confidential terms the nature of the evidence which they would like to provide.

Ministers order inquiry into NHS whistleblowing

2 Comments
An independent inquiry has been ordered into the treatment of whistleblowers by the NHS amid fears from the head of the Mid Staffs inquiry that the ‘culture of fear’ is worse than was thought

Daily Telegraph 24 June 2014

Sir Robert Francis was appointed to lead an independent inquiry into whistleblowing in the NHS on Monday
Sir Robert Francis was appointed to lead an independent inquiry into whistleblowing in the NHS on Monday Photo: PA
Laura Donnelly

By , Health Editor

A culture of fear in the NHS may be worse than it was thought, the head of the Mid Staffs inquiry has warned, as a list of hospitals with a “poor” rating for honesty about safety is published.

Ministers yesterday appointed Sir Robert Francis QC to lead an independent inquiry into whistleblowing in the NHS.

The investigation comes amid growing concerns about the treatment of staff who try to raise the alarm on safety risks.

The appointment is part of a wider NHS transparency drive under which hospitals will receive better ratings for coming clean about their errors.

A new safety website means from today patients can look up every hospital in the country, to check seven safety indicators, including infection levels, staff numbers, and whether workers would recommend the hospital to their own family.

The data shows 29 hospitals have been rated “poor” for their overall openness and honesty of reporting, while 35 sites received the worst rating for infection control.

Hospitals will also be encouraged to introduce “airline-style” safety briefings for patients, using videos setting out what to expect during their visit, and urging them to speak up if they have concerns.

Sir Robert has been asked by ministers to lead the inquiry which will examine how to protect whistleblowers from reprisals, and how to change the culture of the NHS so staff feel able to speak up.

During the public inquiry into Mid-Staffs, nurses told how the were bullied into silence after trying to alert managers that patients were being put in danger from appalling failings in care.

On Tuesday Sir Robert said that he feared that the situation was even worse than he had thought, with increasing numbers of whistleblowers contacting him since his landmark report to Government last year.

He said: “Since the inquiry I’ve had a lot of people talk to me about the culture of fear that prevents people speaking out – and maybe it’s a reflection [of that culture] that not as much of that came out at the inquiry as might have done.”

Sir Robert said the inquiry would examine why it was that NHS staff felt afraid to speak up, warning that every time the health service treated a whistleblower badly many more staff were deterred from “doing the right thing”.

He said the Mid Staffs inquiry had shown “the appalling consequences for patients when there is a ‘closed ranks’ culture.”

In April, a cardiologist who was hounded out of his job after warning that patients were dying because of cost-cutting practices won a landmark legal victory in the longest-running case in NHS whistleblowing history.

Last week Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary met six NHS whistleblowers who pleaded for more to be done to help those who lose homes and careers because they tried to speak up for patients.

He said on Tuesday that the NHS “has a long way to go” in the way it responds to staff who try to raise concerns.”

He said the new campaign would aim to save 6,000 lives in three years, halving the 12,000 avoidable deaths estimated annually.

The safety website launched yesterday measures each hospital against seven measures; infection control; meeting regulators standards; staffing levels compared with those planned; patients being assessed for blood clots; proportion of staff who would recommend their workplace to friends and family; whether the hospital responds quickly to alerts of safety risks and an overall measure, examining how “open and honest” the reporting culture is.

The new indicator on infection control brings together existing data on cleanliness, levels of bugs such as MRSA, and patient inspections, to form ratings.

In total, 35 NHS hospital sites were rated as poor, with 33 found to be good and 228 okay.

For overall levels of “open and honest” reporting, 29 acute hospital trusts were rated as poor, while 25 were rated as good and 87 as okay.

The measure was based on their performance in five categories, including reporting levels of minor and major incidents.

Under the ratings, trusts fared better for being open about their mistakes, and worse if they had suspiciously low levels of reporting.

http://www.nhs.uk/safety/search/

Hospitals rated as “poor” for open and honest reporting of safety risks:

Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

St Helens And Knowsley Hospitals NHS Trust

Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust

Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust

Basildon And Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation

Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust

The Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust

West Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust

Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Croydon Health Services NHS Trust

Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust

Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Countess of Chester Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust

Bolton NHS Foundation Trust

North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust

Doncaster And Bassetlaw Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Royal Liverpool And Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust

Chelsea And Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

Wrightington, Wigan And Leigh NHS Foundation Trust

North West London Hospitals NHS Trust

Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust

United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust

East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust

Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust

Brighton And Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust

Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust

East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust

Shrewsbury And Telford Hospital NHS Trust

Message from Jeremy Hunt today

 

“I am announcing an independent review into creating an open and honest reporting culture in the NHS chaired by Sir Robert Francis QC, who chaired the landmark inquiry into the poor standards of care in Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust.

 

The review is being established to provide independent advice and recommendations on measures to ensure that NHS workers can raise concerns with confidence that they will be acted upon, that they will not suffer detriment as a result and to ensure that where NHS whistleblowers are mistreated there are appropriate remedies for staff and accountability for those mistreating them.

 

The review will consider the merits and practicalities of independent mediation and appeal mechanisms to resolve disputes on whistleblowing fairly. It will do this by listening to and learning the lessons from historic cases where NHS whistleblowers say they have been mistreated after raising their concerns and by seeking out best practice.”

Meeting with Hunt and Stevens – ITV London

3 Comments

 

Following from a letter sent to Jeremy Hunt, Health Secretary, by Sharmila Chowdhury, a NHS whistleblower, and from the 6 whistleblowers to Simon Stevens, Head of NHS,  a meeting was arranged with Jeremy Hunt and Simon Stevens at Richmond House on 18 June 2014 to discuss serious problems relating to NHS whistleblowing.

 

In attendance were other prominent whistleblowers. The group described problems which surrounded whistlblowing and the risks to patients which has resulted in NHS staff being too scared to speak up.

 

The group unanimously  have demanded for public inquiry, so that lessons can be learned and ‘correct’ measures can be implemented to protect all whistleblowers. Hunt acknowledged that there were serious problems with whistleblowing in the NHS and it was far from perfect. He also agreed there is a still a long way to go.

Whistleblower sacked from Ealing Hospital meets Health Secretary to demand public inquiry

1 Comment
Ealing Gazette 20 June 2014   View  original article
Sharmila Chowdhury, who made fraud allegations against two Ealing Hospital workers, met with the secretary of state for health to ask for an inquiry into her case
An NHS whistleblower has met the secretary of state for health to demand a public inquiry into her case.
Sharmila Chowdhury, who had worked for the NHS for 30 years, has been fighting for a positive outcome to her case since 2009, when she first made fraud allegations against two consultants at Ealing Hospital .
The 54-year-old, who lives on her own in Ealing, now suffers from breast and lung cancer, which she says is linked to stress.
Miss Chowdhury and five other whistleblowers told their stories to health secretary Jeremy Hunt and the head of the NHS Simon Stevens at a meeting on Wednesday (June 19).
No definite answers were given but Miss Chowdhury, who is currently unemployed and at risk of being made homeless, hopes this will not be the end.
Miss Chowdhury reported two consultants for allegedly working at a private hospital when they were supposed to be working at Ealing Hospital and being paid to be there. The 54-year-old, a former imaging services manager in the radiology department, said: “One day about four years ago we had a sick patient in A&E and could not find a consultant and that’s when we found out two of them were going to a private hospital when they were supposed to be at Ealing. They had been doing this since 2006.
“False counter allegations were made against me. One of the HR managers marched me out. I was suspended then dismissed on the grounds of fraud, even though they had no evidence.”

  Miss Chowdhury, who was the budget holder and had to sign off attendance records, added: “I took the trust to an Interim Relief Hearing in 2010 and won because I had all the evidence. Despite that the trust refused to have me back.

“I appealed against their decision and won, but the trust would still not have me back.” The case was settled out of court in 2012 and the radiographer was given two years pay, but £77,000 went on legal fees.
A spokesman from Ealing Hospital NHS Trust said: “An independent investigation into concerns raised by Ms Chowdhury concluded no wrongdoing was committed by any trust employee. “Ms Chowdhury later won an internal appeal against her dismissal.
Subsequently she reached a settlement with the trust and left its employment.” She said after her appeal the trust said her job was redundant due to new technology.

NHS may face whistleblower public inquiry

The Times 19 June 2014
Jeremy Hunt and Simon Stevens, the head of the NHS, met in London with six whistleblowers who have won the support of senior backbenchers
Jeremy Hunt
Oliver Moody
Published at 12:01AM, June 19 2014

Jeremy Hunt is understood to be considering creating a “beefed-up” ombudsman to handle NHS whistleblowing cases and end the culture of silence in the health service.

The health secretary has also said that he is open to holding a Leveson-style public inquiry into the system after hearing stinging criticism of NHS trusts and health unions.

Yesterday Mr Hunt and Simon Stevens, the head of the NHS, met in London with six whistleblowers who have won the support of senior backbenchers on both sides of the Commons in their campaign for an inquiry and fresh investigations into their cases.

Edwin Jesudason, a spokesman for the six and a leading paediatrician, said that Mr Hunt had set out the idea of a powerful ombudsman that could look at the concerns raised by NHS staff about serious failings in patient care.

At present a few cases are handled each year by the parliamentary and health service ombudsman (PHSO), which investigates complaints against the NHS but has been subjected to strong criticism by several MPs.

“[Mr Hunt’s] thought was to have a system where if you had a concern it would go straight up to them and they could certify whether it was genuine whistleblowing,” Mr Jesudason said.

“We told him in no uncertain terms that unless there’s a more basic reform the system will be gamed. The trusts and the unions will carry on giving an account that’s basically untrue and that can suppress the truth from coming out.”

Mr Hunt and Mr Stevens were said to have been stunned when the whistleblowers attacked the NHS unions for failing to support them and warned that no lasting change would be possible without a full public inquiry.

“They know there’s a problem, they just don’t know how much they need to do to deal with it,” Mr Jesudason said.

One whistleblower who attended the summit reacted angrily after the health secretary ruled out intervening in her case on the eve of the meeting. Mr Hunt’s aides initially insisted that he was keeping all options open, but on Monday he said that he did not have the power to help.

“I am not able to get involved in local decisions about the employment of individual NHS staff, as those decisions are a matter for the particular NHS employer, the employee and, in some cases, the employment tribunal,” he wrote in a letter to Sharmila Chowdhury, a radiographer who lost her job after blowing the whistle on alleged moonlighting at her trust.

However, he promised to arrange a meeting between Ms Chowdhury and the independent government body that looks after NHS trusts to “discuss your options for the future”.

Mrs Chowdhury, 54, who has developed cancer and risks losing her home after a protracted employment tribunal against her trust, said that Mr Hunt’s refusal to get involved was “outrageous”.

Sir Brian Jarman, emeritus professor of public health at Imperial College, London and one of the country’s leading NHS policy experts, said the problem was that no single authority wanted to take responsibility for looking after whistleblowers.

“The department of health says it has no powers to intervene in individual cases, but I’m not sure who does intervene in individual cases,” he said. “The situation for whistleblowers seems to be a bit like that for second-level patient complaints [those not received at the hospital]: no organisation is clearly responsible for resolving all individual cases.”

He said that only a public inquiry could ensure that whistleblowers were treated fairly in future.

“Although there is probably a feeling of ‘inquiry fatigue’ at the department of health, I think the only way we would get to the bottom of this would be by a public inquiry into whistleblowing in the NHS,” he said. “It could cover the question of reopening historic cases, but it seems to me only fair that historic cases should be reopened.”

The department of health declined to respond to what they said was a “private meeting”. Later in the day, Mr Hunt tweeted: “Had an interesting and informative meeting with NHS whistleblowers today -the culture in our NHS is changing, but there’s much to do.”

 

NHS Whistleblowers to air complaints with Jeremy Hunt

4 Comments
Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, to meet group of NHS whistleblowers who claim he is not doing enough to help them
Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt

Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt  Photo: PA

By Daily Telegraph reporter

7:00AM BST 16 Jun 20

Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt is to meet six NHS whistleblowers who claim he is not doing enough to help them. The group are headed by a radiographer who was sacked after exposing corruption at her local hospital.
Sharmila Chowdhury claims Mr Hunt has refused so far to intervene in her case and ensure she is restored to her job.
Mr Hunt has in the past said that whistleblowers in the health service should be free from persecution by their employers.
However, the group claim he must now back his words up with action.
Mrs Chowdhury said: “He says he supports whistleblowers but when it comes down to helping people like myself we find we are abandoned. “We speak up for patient safety and we lose our jobs and often our careers.”
Mr Hunt has spoken in the past about the need for openness in the NHS and earlier this year intervened in the case of a whistleblower who was being threatened with disciplinary action by Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust.
Mrs Chowdhury found in 2009 that consultants she managed at Ealing Hospital had been charging NHS patients for scans. They were also claiming for working in their NHS posts when they were at their private practices. But senior trust managers shielded the consultants, accused Mrs Chowdhury of fraud and sacked her.
Mrs Chowdhury, who is now seriously ill with breast cancer, said: “I am out of work and may lose my home because I can no longer afford to pay the mortgage. I need help urgently.”
Others attending the meeting include Professor Edwin Jesudason, forced out of his job as paediatric surgeon at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital, Liverpool after alleging that children had died and suffered harm due to poor surgery.
Nurse Annabelle Blackburn, who was sacked after revealing that patient’s lives were being put at risk by a chaotically run GP practice in Oxford, and Dr David Drew, a paediatric consultant from Walsall, fired after exposing safety concerns on his wards, will also meet with the Health Secretary.
Joining them will also be Jenny Fecitt, sacked as a nurse manager for raising safety concerns at an NHS walk in centre in Manchester and Professor Narinderr Kapur consultant neuropsychologist and head of neuropsychology at Addenbrooke’s hospital in Cambridge, removed after voicing his concerns about patient safety.
A Department of Health spokesman said: “The Health Secretary has agreed to meet a number of whistleblowers to see how he can help.” Fiona Bell of Cure the NHS North East, who is helping broker the meeting with the Health Secretary, said: “Mr Hunt needs to be seen to do something concrete in addition to giving verbal support “You can’t have a Secretary of State for Health who says he supports whistleblowers and does nothing when they ask him for help. Hopefully this meeting will lead to action.”

The whistleblowers scandal is a shocking indictment of the NHS, which uses public money to hide failings

The Telegraph
By  Politics Last updated: June 12th, 2013
The most bewildering aspect of the NHS whistleblowers scandal is the apparently widespread assumption within the health service that it is better to hush something up than improve services for patients.
Time and again, health authorities have turned a blind eye – to put it mildly – to dangerous malpractice or criminal wrongdoing on the part of clinicians simply in order not to draw negative attention to themselves. Which, they fear, might cost them their funding. And, it is alleged, the fat-cat salaries taken by those at the top.
As the Telegraph reports, this comes with a price tag. Two million pounds has been spent on silencing whistleblowers, rather than being directed towards addressing the problems they have highlighted. According to many whistleblowers, this may be just the tip of the iceberg.
One of the most prominent NHS whistleblowers of recent times is Dr Peter Wilmshurst, 64, a consultant cardiologist. Over a period of 30 years he has called to account countless unscrupulous members of the medical profession, including some of the most senior figures in the NHS. Their crimes included embezzlement of charity funds, falsifying research figures, charging fees for consultants that don’t exist, and reckless surgical practices.
The NHS, he says, will happily pay £500,000 of taxpayers’ money to whistleblowers as part of a gagging order to keep them quiet. “But if you include legal fees and administration expense,” he says, “it can cost £5m to silence an innocent junior doctor and protect a guilty senior doctor. Trusts are being run by people whose first priority is to protect their department from cuts or closure, even if that means covering up malpractice. It is illogical, unreasonable, distressing and very unjust.”
According to Dr Wilmshurst, there is “serious endemic corruption” throughout the health service. When a cardiologist called Clive Handler, for example, was found guilty of embezzlement, rather than being prosecuted, he was initially offered a pay-out to “go quietly”, and only later found guilty by the GMC of using NHS research funds to subsidise his private practice (the GMC has a lower standard of proof than the criminal courts). In another case, one of the accused parties sat on the General Medical Council in judgment on his own case.
“Mid Staffs is seen as an outlier, but many Trusts could be in identical positions,” says Dr Wilmshurst. “There are lots of hospitals where even worse things happen. Some are almost unbelievable. That’s why we need whistleblowers.”
If that is the most bewildering aspect, the most shocking is the way in which the NHS has treated those who have tried to serve the public interest by drawing attention to substandard care. A particularly prominent example of this occurred in 2004. Margy Haywood, now 62, an experienced nurse, took a job at an NHS care home in Brighton.
“There were major problems,” she recalls. “The manager didn’t have a clue what going on, and was preoccupied with budgets and targets. An elderly lady with liver cancer was screaming in pain for lack of pain relief. There was urine and blood all up the curtains. Staff were eating the patients’ food while the patients went hungry.”
She secretly filmed this abuse for the BBC’s Panorama, and retaliation swiftly followed. “I was charged with 46 counts of misconduct,” she says. “After a four-year investigation, all were thrown out apart from breach of confidentiality.” Nevertheless, she was struck off.
Following two public petitions, however, Haywood was reinstated. She returned to work in 2008, and a year later was voted Nurse of the Year. “Without that support I would have been admitted under the mental health act,” she says.
“I lost my livelihood, while the people who were abusing and neglecting patients carried on with their jobs.” All of this amounts to what appears to be a serious indictment of the NHS. Although gagging orders have officially been outlawed, many whistleblowers have been so intimidated that they are afraid to take advantage of their new freedom.
Indeed, according to Kim Holt, the paediatric consultant who blew the whistle on Haringey’s NHS childrens’ services following the tragic death of Peter Connelly, or “Baby P” – who died in 2007 after months of abuse, despite being on the council’s “at risk” register – even legal professionals are unsure whether it is safe for whistleblowers to speak out. “Lawyers are still advising whistleblowers very forcefully not to break gagging orders,” she says. “We need a full inquiry into the misuse of confidentiality clauses. This is just the tip of the iceberg.” She speaks from personal experience. Following the death of Baby P in 2007, Holt went public with her concerns. She was offered £80,000, which was later raised to £120,000, in exchange for silence. “I was tempted to take the money,” she says, “but I would not have signed the gagging order since my concerns had not been addressed. You are told to raise concerns as a professional duty. But then you are paid off and silenced.
“Gagging orders have actually been illegal for a long time, but the law needs to be enforced. Over the last three years, 400 people in the NHS have been gagged, at a cost of £15 million. They are using public money to hide things rather than putting an end to malpractice.”
The NHS, which many Britons still believe to be the envy of the world, has suffered immense damage to its reputation in recent years. Not only are waiting lists spiralling out of control and patients dying unnecessarily, but such are the rewards of the gravy train that some top NHS staff appear to be actively working to keep things as they are. Without a doubt, this scandal reveals one of the ugliest faces of modern Britain.
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

Walsall manor whistleblower releases book dedicated to toddler Kyle Keen

By Walsall Advertiser  |  Posted: June 12, 2014

Kyle Keen was just 16 months old when he was shaken to death by his stepfather.

David’s book is dedicated to the youngster.Dr David Drew has lifted the lid on his turbulent career at Walsall Manor Hospital in his new book, the Little Stories of Life and Death. WATS20140610JOB 04-1456_C

LIFE has been a whirlwind for Dr David Drew – although he might not admit it. “Well, it’s pleasure and pain isn’t it?” he said. “I see it like this – I lost my three brothers to accidental deaths and that was at a time when I was bringing my own children up. “I had to live with the sadness of my brothers’ deaths, but pair that with raising my children.

RELATED CONTENT

“That’s the reality of life. It’s a mix.” And throughout his life, resilient Dr Drew has certainly had the best of both worlds.

There’s been the pleasure – his training in Bristol, running medical camps in the likes of Thailand and Nigeria and landing what he considered, at first, a “wonderful job” at Walsall Manor Hospital in 1992.
But then came the pain, which he said began when he spoke out about the death of a young patient in 2006. Kyle Keen was just 16-months-old when he was violently shaken to death by his stepfather, Tyrone Matthews.
But one week before his death, Kyle had received treatment at Walsall Manor – where bruising had been spotted on his body. Despite this, the youngster was sent home by another doctor and information was not passed on to police or Walsall Council’s children’s services – leading to no action being taken. “It was an avoidable death,” said Dr Drew. “The hospital covered up everything about Kyle’s death, they refused to take action or any remedy to rectify the mistakes.
“A serious case review [in 2009] admitted that Kyle was unlawfully killed following catastrophic failings at the hospital.” The head of the paediatric department at the time, Dr Drew became a whistle blower and raised concerns over the death.
He said this put him on a collision course with senior NHS management. It was in December last year – seven years following Kyle’s death – that Walsall Manor Hospital agreed to finally launch a thorough review into Kyle’s death.
The report is due to be published next week. But for Dr Drew, it is too late. “This should’ve been done within weeks of Kyle’s death – it should have been done years ago,” he argued. “It’s only when this report comes out that the public will have any idea of what really happened. “All I can say is that it explains what I’ve said about Kyle’s death from the start.”
Dr Drew’s book – Little Stories of Life and Death – is dedicated to Kyle. The youngster’s father, Rob, has been in contact with the doctor since they met in September 2012.
When asked if he thinks the report will give Mr Keen closure, Dr Drew isn’t so sure. “The thing is, you can’t undo the past,” he said. “But it helps when serious mistakes have been made and someone puts their hands up and says, ‘we’ve got this wrong’. “It’s ruined Rob’s life – he’s lost his son, his young daughter has lost a brother. “This report will send shockwaves.”
For Dr Drew, who moved on to become a clinical director, things went from bad to worse at the hospital. He grabbed the national headlines when he was sacked from Walsall Manor Hospital in 2010 for emailing quotes from the Bible to colleagues. Although insisting he had sent the prayer of St Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits, to boost morale at a time of “cost-cutting” at the hospital, he was dismissed and lost his claim for unfair dismissal at an employment tribunal. Employment Judge David Kearsley agreed that Dr Drew’s religious language had been inappropriate in a professional business setting.
Two subsequent appeals against the ruling were also dismissed. His experience – along with allegations of bullying and understaffed wards at the hospital – have all been written down in Little Stories of Life and Death.
But the 66-year-old admits that reflecting on the past wasn’t easy. “Writing this book has been an immensely painful experience,” he said. “Going over my removal as clinical director, the disciplinary procedure, the tribunals and appeals were tough.”
But it wasn’t all doom and gloom at Walsall Manor, Dr Drew adds. He says the first 14 years of his career in Walsall were some of the best he ever had – and that he enjoyed reflecting back on them. “When I joined the hospital permanently in 1992 I had done a year there already in 1987,” said Dr Drew. “My wife Janet inspired me to get the job – she said during that year I had worked there, I was the happiest she had ever known me. “I loved Walsall. It’s very cosmopolitan. I knew I was never your average doctor and I had a lot of banter.”
Dr Drew is also positive about Richard Kirby, current chief executive of Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust, which runs the hospital. “There’s a spirit of openness coming from the chief executive’s office which should transform the culture of Manor Hospital,” he said. “He needs bigging up – he’s a young man trying his best.”
Little Stories of Life and Death was published by Matador in April 2014 – and David said it has been “selling like hot cakes” with positive feedback from as far afield as Australia. He explained that the book also opens people’s eyes to how the NHS works.
“The NHS is brilliant – it saved my life twice last year and we have one of the best, most efficient health services in the world,” said Dr Drew, who lives in Sutton Coldfield. “But parts of it are badly managed, the culture is dreadful – staff are bullied, it does go on. “I hope my own story will help to create a culture in which it’s safe for staff to speak up for patients.”
For now, David looks forward to enjoying his retirement with wife Janet – whom he married in 1971 – and spending time with his four children and nine grandchildren. But he added that he has “another year or two” in him of talking and writing about his experience.
When asked if he would take the opportunity to blow the whistle again, Dr Drew’s response is a stern one. He believes that the stress of what he has gone through brought on a heart attack, which he suffered last year. “If I was a single person with no family I would definitely do it, but knowing what immense grief it’s brought to my whole family, the financial loss and the affect my illnesses have had on my family I wouldn’t,” he said. “And I wouldn’t advise anybody who’s got dependant relatives to raise concerns like I did. It’s too damaging all around.”
This week, after being contacted by the Advertiser, Walsall Manor Healthcare NHS Trust released a statement on the book. “We are aware that Dr Drew’s book has now been published,” said Richard Kirby, chief executive of the trust. “The issues that Dr Drew raises were the subject of an independent review back in 2009 and the employment issues involved were tested at an employment tribunal. “In addition we have recently commissioned a further review of a specific case. “As a trust we actively encourage and support our staff to raise an issue if they are concerned about patient care.”
And when asked about the investigation into Kyle Keen’s death, Mr Kirby added: “We will be meeting with Kyle’s father over the next few days to share the outcome of the external review. “A further statement will be available next week when the report is published.”
Little Stories of Life and Death can be purchased for £10.99 online from http://www.troubador.co.uk

Tribunal ruling will silence whistleblowers, fear campaigners

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
Published in The Times 4 June 2014Sharmila Chowdhury
Sharmila Chowdhury told of moonlighting     Paul Rogers, The Times
Chris Smyth, Oliver Moody
Published at 12:01AM, June 4 2014

Whistleblowers will be deterred from coming forward after an NHS inspector who highlighted key failures lost her employment tribunal, campaigners have warned.

Amanda Pollard told a public inquiry into the Mid Staffordshire scandal in 2011 that the Care Quality Commission, where she worked, prioritised paperwork over looking for poor standards of care. Her criticisms were largely accepted by the inquiry and the regulator’s new leaders, but she left the CQC last year, claiming she was forced out.

An employment tribunal has rejected Mrs Pollard’s claim for unfair dismissal, even though it acknowledged that she was making public interest disclosures and it was “wholly inappropriate” for bosses to criticise her for doing so. The tribunal ruled that while she suffered because of her revelations there was no campaign against her.

A judge said that it was wrong for Dame Jo Williams, who was CQC chairwoman at the time, and Cynthia Bower, then its chief executive, to send emails to all staff criticising her. “There was no acknowledgement or recognition that [Mrs Pollard] might be expressing genuine concerns in the best interests of the public whom [the CQC] sought to service,” Harjit Grewal, the tribunal chairwoman, wrote.

This was “particularly surprising” given that the CQC relied on NHS whistleblowers to raise concerns about poor care. However, Grewal said that Mrs Pollard had misinterpreted “innocuous” actions by other managers.

Mrs Pollard said the decision “sends a very unfortunate message. It’s got be a quietening message for whistleblowers and that’s very unfortunate. When care is bad, people do need to pipe up about it and the law needs to protect them.

“There is still a real fear factor about whistleblowing, which prevents people from speaking up – especially if this is in order to support those facing litigation. Despite many messages of support from former colleagues, I found it difficult to call them as witnesses.”

Cathy James, chief executive of the charity Public Concern at Work, said: “This case clearly demonstrates how difficult it is to prevail as a whistleblower through the UK courts. The public interest is often lost in the legal wrangling surrounding these types of cases. Whistleblowers need more support and are often facing a David and Goliath battle.”

David Behan, chief executive of the CQC, said: “In the lead-up to the tribunal we offered Ms Pollard a new job. We have made a number of changes to encourage an open and transparent culture and improved the way we engage with staff.”

Mrs Pollard is not alone. Sharmila Chowdhury was a radiology manager for Ealing Hospitals NHS Trust who lost her job after telling it that £250,000 had been lost through moonlighting by medical consultants. Ms Chowhury took the trust to a tribunal and won, but it refused to reinstate her.

Simon Stevens, chief executive of NHS England, has agreed to meet six whistleblowers later this month. The six, who want independent reviews into their cases and a public inquiry led by a judge, have won cross-party backing and support from several senior NHS experts.

Mr Stevens and Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, have discussed reforms with a number of those who have exposed some of the worst NHS failures, including Julie Bailey, who brought the Mid Staffordshire scandal to public notice.

Letter to Jeremy Hunt 2 – Help & Justice for Sharmila 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 hide by labelling ‘whistleblowing’ cases as ‘employment’ issues and do nothing to help.

 In previous correspondences, you will note that I had won Interim Relief Hearing, which means that I am proven to be a whistleblower by the court. Winning this case meant that I was unfairly dismissed as a direct result of whistleblowing.  Despite this, you still choose to do nothing on the grounds you cannot intervene in an “employment issue”.

  I have lost my career, income and health. As you are aware I am now suffering from breast and lung cancer, which numerous consultants believe is directly due to stress suffered as a result of whistleblowing. Due to lack of income, I am also about to lose my home. This has come about because of Department of Health’s refusal to intervene. Instead they watched me suffer over a period of 4 years and turn a blind eye. I am afraid that the Department of Health (and you as Secretary of State along with your predecessor), is ultimately responsible for my current situation. Yet, you fail to behave responsibly.

 It is also scandalous that I had reported fraud at my Trust, which is a criminal offence. Very large sums of tax payer’s money which should have gone on patient care have been wasted.  Despite this, Department of Health, The Treasury, NHS London and No 10 failed to investigate. The perpetrators and Trust managers have not been held to account. Instead they have continued working within NHS and have been leading a normal life. In fact some of them have even been promoted. I however, who raised public interest concerns, with full documentation, have been punished. I have to question your moral judgement.

 I received a phone call from your office yesterday, following my email to you copying in MP’s and journalists. I was advised that by sending the email I had compromised my situation. I have no idea what this means since nothing else I have done so far has elicited such a speedy response. I do not respond to bullying which is what I think was intended by the caller and I never have.  The sheer fact that I whistleblew under immense pressure should have told you that.  Despite being subjected to four gruelling years, unlike many whistleblowers, I have not suffered any mental illness or breakdown. Although I now have cancer.

 To reiterate, I would like:

  1. My desperate financial situation to be remedied urgently for which you are responsible
  2. Public inquiry into my case and my treatment as a whistleblower
  3. Apology from you for Department of Health’s treatment of me as a whistleblower

Spokesman for Department of Health

“All too often staff who speak out about problems have felt alone and ignored. The Francis report showed the appalling consequences for patients when this happens and the Health Secretary is committed to a culture change in the NHS so that whistle blowers are supported and listened to.”

 You have neither listened nor supported me. You have not stood by your words Mr Hunt. You certainly have not done anything to change the current culture in the NHS.

 I am asking again that you acknowledge the reality of what has happened to myself and many others, solely for raising concerns about patient care and the public interest. Your current response might reasonably lead me to conclude that you are more annoyed about my persistence in seeking to right a wrong than you are about the original wrong doing or my treatment since.

 It is clear that you either do not have an understanding of the of the consequences whistleblowing in the NHS or are in denial about them. The NHS is awash with declarations, policies, speeches and assurances but when whistleblowers are victimised the usual DH response appears to be to look the other way and talk about, “not being able to intervene because they are employment matters.”

 By allowing continuing persecution of whistleblowers within the NHS you personally place patients at risk. Staff are too scared to speak up, because they consistently see what happens to others who do. This outrageous cultural behaviour within the NHS needs to end. As a leader you will need to set an example. Even at this late stage I hope you do.

 Yours sincerely

Sharmila Chowdhury

Letter from DoH 30/5/2014

The following outrageous letter was sent by Department of Health on Friday. Despite winning hearing and being proven to be a whistleblower.

From: Bird, Chris

Sent: 30 May 2014 15:57

To: Jones, Edward; Bhasin, Raghuv; Davies, David; McLeod, Kristen Cc: Beeby, Sue; Harrison, Paul

Subject: RE: Letter to Jeremy Hunt – Help and Justice for Sharmila Chowdhury

Text of the letter that should have been sent to Sharmila from Dan:

PO00000834159 Ms Sharmila Chowdhury

Thank you for your letter of 19th December to Jeremy Hunt in which you call for an urgent review of your whistleblowing case.  I should clarify that we received your letter through your local MP, Angie Bray.  Ms Bray copied to Mr Hunt her letter of 9th January to Professor Sir Malcolm Grant, Chairman of NHS England, enclosing your letter of 19th December.

I have noted your concerns but I hope you will appreciate that the Department of Health has no powers to intervene in individual cases.  The Department of Health would not wish to circumvent or duplicate existing processes where other organisations have relevant statutory powers or are more appropriately placed to investigate.  Nor would the Department wish to prejudice the outcome of any current or future legal action. I realise that this reply may be disappointing, but it is important to clarify the Department of Health’s position.

With regard to whistleblowing more generally, this Government has made it clear that improvements in and awareness of whistleblowing procedures are a priority. Whistleblowing contributes to the development of greater transparency and openness in the NHS, ensuring that patients can be confident of receiving high quality care.

The Government fully supports whistleblowing and we wish to see a culture in the NHS where whistle-blowers feel able to come forward and raise genuine concerns in good faith without fear of repercussion or reprisal. We have made it clear to NHS organisations that they should have policies and procedures in place that support and encourage staff to raise concerns, and that those concerns should be acted upon. It is completely unacceptable for any individual to suffer detrimental treatment for raising a concern.  It is for this reason that the Department of Health supported the introduction of vicarious liability into employment law.  This now ensures that any individual who speaks out on matters of public interest will also be protected in law from suffering detrimental treatment by a co-worker, as well as by their employer.

In addition, the Department of Health funds a helpline for whistle-blowers which offers free, impartial and confidential advice to NHS and social care staff, who wish to raise concerns but are not sure how to, or what protections they have in law when they do so.  The Helpline is also currently refreshing guidance on whistle-blowing, to include managers and staff from adult social care and the NHS.  Information on the helpline is available at this website: www.wbhelpline.org.uk.

Finally, the NHS Trust Development Authority (NHS TDA) has been established to provide support, oversight and governance for all NHS Trusts in delivering high quality services.  Information is available at the TDA website at www.ntda.nhs.uk.

I hope this reply is helpful.

DR DAN POULTER

cc Angie Bray MP

Vindication for a whistleblower

Police probe new claims after NHS boss who said patients are locked up is fired
  • David Ore claimed Dudley hospital was locking up patients for 12 hours
  • He was made redundant this month ahead of an employment tribunal
  • West Midlands police have begun an investigation into the hospital
  • Dudley NHS Trust chiefs claim Mr Ore’s accusations are ‘unfounded’

By PAUL BENTLEY  Daily Mail

PUBLISHED: 00:19, 27 May 2014 | UPDATED: 08:12, 27 May 2014  

Whistleblower: David Ore said that hospital security guards were told to lock up elderly patients and children for up to 12 hours with no food or drinkWhistleblower: David Ore said that hospital security guards were told to lock up elderly patients and children for up to 12 hours with no food or drink

Police are investigating claims that unreasonable force is being used to restrain vulnerable patients on NHS wards, it emerged last night.

The allegations surfaced after whistleblower David Ore told the Mail that hospital security guards were ordered to lock up elderly patients and children for up to 12 hours with no food or drink.

Now more claims have arisen, prompting a criminal investigation into the actions of staff at Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust, which runs three hospitals.

Continue reading →

Serco whistlebower’s Yarl’s Wood sex claim

Leave a comment
Former Serco official says vulnerable women were deported without proper mental health assessments

Link to video: Yarl’s Wood sex abuse claims: Serco whistleblower speaks out

A former senior Serco official who worked inside the Yarl’s Wood immigration detention centre has alleged that an anti-immigration culture was “endemic” among staff, and that vulnerable women have been deported without their mental health being properly assessed.
The claims came after the Observer revealed last week that the private outsourcing giant is to be investigated by MPs when it was forced to disclose a secret internal report revealing evidence that it failed to properly investigate a claim of repeated sexual assaults by one of its staff against a female resident.
The whistleblower also claimed that another alleged case of sexual assault by a Serco member of staff occurred in August 2012, involving a particularly vulnerable detainee with profound psychological issues. It is understood she has since been deported. The claims come from the first senior employee to have broken rank since the immigration detention centre – which is so tightly guarded that the Home Office recently banned the United Nations from entry – opened in 2001.
The whistleblower claims Yarl’s Wood is not fit for purpose and that he detected a culture of disbelief towards female detainees, claims which are rejected by Serco. He said: “Officers would say openly: ‘They need to go back, they need to leave the country, they’re only coming here to use NHS resources.’ A common phrase was: ‘They’re only putting it on to block their removal.’ I’ve actually heard [senior staff] say: ‘These people are putting it on.’ It was endemic … even the senior management structures were saying this, it was a mindset.”
The whistleblower, who resigned from Serco last year after raising concerns, corroborated allegations from former detainees that some women felt they had to flirt with staff to obtain everyday essentials such as toiletries.
He also claimed that a Serco female officer had told him of a “blind spot” inside Yarl’s Wood, which was not covered by CCTV and was a well-known location for trysts and where an officer had previously made a woman detainee pregnant. “She said: ‘This is a blind spot, this is where people come.’ They seemed to know where all the blind spots were,” said the whistleblower.
He also alleged that mental health concerns were not dealt with adequately and that too many women were being deported without sufficient assessment. “The lack of engagement with mental health in relation to assessment and safeguards was very concerning. They weren’t doing assessments to rule out mental health, the ACDT [Assessment Care in Detention and Teamwork] documentation wasn’t getting filled out properly. God knows how many people they had deported without a proper assessment,” he told the Observer.
The whistleblower estimated that more than half of the detainees at any time – over 200 individuals – had either self-harmed or were at risk of self-harming. Serco, however, cites the latest chief inspector of prisons report, which found “good primary mental health provision” inside the centre.
A possible reason for the alleged failure to assess inmates was, he believed, to ensure women were deported faster. “It’s clear to me that they didn’t specifically want to identify the mental health needs of individuals because that would block the system”. He described one instance where a colleague told him that a woman with severe kidney failure was earmarked for deportation because “she’s taken up the resources of the NHS and needs to be deported. She was a dying woman.”
The former Serco employee also alleged that guards could be hostile and intimidating to some of the detainees and that officers would often complain about understaffing which, he said, manifested itself in frustration.
The Home Office said that the latest inspection of Yarl’s Wood reported that most detainees said that they were treated with respect by staff and that they saw mainly good staff–detainee engagement.
The latest HMIP report found that “there was good primary mental health provision”. Among incidents that he witnessed were a woman who poured boiling water over herself and was left for hours in a state of shock and a woman who tied a ligature around her neck while she was apparently under observation.
Cristel Amiss of the Black Women’s Rape Action Project said the whistleblower’s claims chimed with reports they received from former detainees. She said: “The revelations of the abuse and mistreatment of vulnerable women have come about because of women’s courageous decision to speak publicly and the Observer‘s determination to pursue this issue.”
Norman Abusin, Serco’s director at the detention centre, said: “We absolutely refute the suggestion that there is an endemic culture of disbelief towards the women in our care at Yarl’s Wood. We feel that such general allegations are unfair to our hardworking and dedicated staff at Yarl’s Wood. The wellbeing of the people in our care is always top priority.

Link to video: Yarl’s Wood sex abuse allegations: ‘They are treating us like animals’

“We view all allegations or complaints extremely seriously. There are two reporting systems, both independent of Serco, which residents can use to raise concerns. Complaints are thoroughly investigated and, if substantiated, disciplinary action is always taken.” A Home Office spokesman said: “Detention and removal are essential parts of effective immigration controls,” adding: “We take the welfare of our detainees very seriously.”Yarl’s Wood is inspected regularly by the Chief Inspector of Prisons as well as its independent monitoring board. Neither have found any evidence pointing towards a ‘culture of disbelief’ at the centre.”

Providing false information could become a criminal offence

Leave a comment
From HSJ 21.5.14

16 May, 2014 | By , 

Is the offence for providing false or misleading information extensive enough? Neil Grant and Joanna Dirmikis explain why providers must share thier views on the Department of Health’s new proposal

The Mid Staffordshire Foundation Trust inquiry found that the trust repeatedly made inaccurate statements about its mortality rates. This led, in part, to a lack of action to investigate issues regarding the quality of care, both within the trust and by other bodies.

Following this, a recommendation was made by Sir Robert Francis QC that it be a criminal offence for a provider to supply or publish false or misleading information.

The DH is currently consulting on this proposal and response admissions will close on 5 June.

The offence

When the Care Bill 2014 comes into force in October, it will be an offence for:

  • Healthcare providers to provide false or misleading information; or
  • A director, manager, secretary or “body corporate” to have “consented or connived in” or be negligent in relation to an offence committed by a care provider.

The primary offence is a strict liability offence which means that the prosecution would not have to prove that there was any intent or recklessness in relation to supplying or publishing the information.

The secondary offence, relating to senior managers, does require the prosecution to prove either intention or recklessness in relation to the offence.

The information – referred to as “specified information” in the draft regulations – relates not just to information provided to a regulator or commissioner but to any information supplied, published or “otherwise made available” in response to a statutory or other legal requirement.

According to the draft regulations, the following commissioning datasets constitute the relevant “specified information”:

  • Accident and emergency services
  • Outpatient services
  • Elective admission
  • Finished birth episodes
  • Finished delivery episodes
  • Other births (including home births)
  • Other deliveries (including home deliveries)
  • Admitted patient care – unfinished birth episodes
  • Admitted patient care – unfinished general episodes
  • Admitted patient care – unfinished delivery episodes
  • National cancer waiting times
  • National maternity services
  • Cancer outcomes
  • Hospital and Community Health Services Complaints Collection
  • Quality accounts

Information that is published on a voluntary basis will not be relevant for this offence (see page 11 of the consultation).

Defence and penalty

It will be a defence for NHS hospitals to demonstrate that they took “all reasonable steps” and exercised “due diligence”. According to the consultation, it will be more difficult to demonstrate this if there are persistent errors.

The offence will only be applied to the most serious cases where patients’ lives have been or “may be” put at risk by the provision of false or misleading information.

The penalty will be a fine or imprisonment for up to two years (or both). This will come with the potential for a “remedial order” for the conduct or deficiency to be remedied and /or a “publicity order” requiring the hospital provider to publicise the fact that there has been a conviction, the particulars of the offence, the amount of any fine imposed and the terms of the remedial order.  A remedial order can only be made on an application by the prosecution specifying the terms of the proposed order.

Illustration of speech bubble made up of lots of different people

Providers have until the 5 June to respond to the DH’s consultation

It is important that you respond to the consultation to get your views heard.

There may be some who will argue that the scope of the offence does not go far enough. According to an article in The Times on 29 April 2014, the Public Accounts Committee found that up to a quarter of a sample of hospital waiting time figures were “simply wrong.” But the offence of providing false or misleading information, as set out in the draft Bill and Regulations, only relates to information waiting times in so far as it relates to cancer waiting times.

This is clearly very relevant to the current investigation in relation to the Colchester Hospital University Foundation Trust, where it is alleged that cancer waiting times were deliberately falsified and staff said they were “bullied or pressured” into altering the data. However it would have no impact in the context of information on other waiting times.

Having said this, according to the consultation this is just the “starting point” for the regulations (see page 14, paragraph 33). It is not clear whether or when the DH intends to extend the application of the legislation beyond these commissioning datasets.

Neil Grant is a partner at Ridouts LLP and Joanna Dirmikis is a barrister and advises on health and social care law for the firm

Why Whistleblowers pay the most

The HSJ
14 May, 2014 | By 

 Reading sad stories about the latest batch of NHS whistleblowers abused by the system for their public spirited protests, I thought to ring Frank Dobson, Tony Blair’s first health secretary before becoming Labour’s sacrificial candidate to run against the maverick Ken Livingstone for London mayor.

‘Politicians have not made a good job of protecting whistleblowers’

It is not as if politicians have made a very good job of protecting people like Coventry’s Raj Mattu (I read his 10-year case may cost the NHS £20m) or Sharmila Chowdhury, a 27-year veteran manager pushed out of Ealing Hospital Trust after reporting what appeared to be fiddled timesheets by moonlighting doctors.

Not only did MPs make a poor fist of their own expenses scandal, they could not even handle straightforward HR cases inside the Palace of Westminster.

Burned for whistleblowing

Only last month GP Sarah Wollaston, the Tory MP from Totnes, ran foul of many fellow MPs after Nigel Evans, the former deputy speaker, was acquitted of sexual assaults on young men half his age. Why? Because Dr Wollaston – herself a former police forensic examiner – encouraged a victim to complain to the speaker John Bercow after failing (this is the key bit) to obtain redress through party channels.

Mr Evans could have been toast but he is not. Instead Dr Wollaston got burned. And in Ireland a minister had to quit this month over a botched whistleblower case.

‘The very word “whistleblower” aggravates things’

Basically it is not that easy, as Mr Dobson discovered in the years after he persuaded reluctant Labour colleagues to include the NHS in their whistleblowers bill, thePublic Interest Disclosure Act 1998.

At the time Mr Dobson had issued his own circular against expensive gagging pay-offs in the NHS without express Treasury approval.

Knowing what we have seen since, a pause for hollow laughter is appropriate.

The only time he fell out with his pals at the Royal College of Physicians is when he suggested anyone worthy of the consultant title should never fear speaking out. “That’s unfair,” the poor dears protested.

Coalition ministers remain puzzled.

Guidance beef-up

In the post-Francis report era MPs on Stephen Dorrell’s health committee have again investigated complaints procedures (mostly from patients).

Jeremy Hunt’s Department of Health appointed Helene Donnelly, a rare whistleblower who kept her job, to advise. He is also preparing to beef-up guidance.

It is much amended since 1998, as confirmed by a glance at the DH’s own website, the NHS constitution (remember the “speaking up” charter of 2012?), assorted helplines and the Public Concern at Work lobby.

Ms Donnelly and the lobby’s Cathy James gave evidence to Mr Dorrell’s panel in March. These cases were not driven by the act, Ms James told MPs.

‘Specific accusations threaten professional, personal and political interests’

By the time it was invoked the case had already gone wrong. What is needed is early intervention to sort things out long before this stage.

“The very word ‘whistleblower’ aggravates things,” added a GP I know. “General accusations are one thing but specific ones threaten professional, personal and political interests.”

Only a third of people seek our advice before they raise a problem, said Ms James – an odd detail in such an internet savvy age.

Pay to be proved right

Of course some whistleblowers are really misfits or troublemakers. But plenty pay a huge cost for being proved right – Ms Chowdhury may lose her home to legal bills.

Mr Hunt takes this stuff seriously; it is part of his patient-centred drive for quality.

Will he concede the public inquiry to examine the whole thorny issue of what repeatedly goes wrong, as some campaigners seek?

My hunch is not, but MPs are working on an initiative, which may see daylight before the 22 May elections if officials decide it does not breach Whitehall’s “purdah” rules: no taxpayer funded gimmicks during a campaign.

Michael White writes about politics for The Guardian

Jeremy Hunt & Recommendations From a Whistleblower

 By Sharmila Chowdhury 19 May 2014

Jeremy Hunt recently wrote a message to all NHS staff (click to view)

It sets out the policies and actions so far on whistle-blowing which include:

  • Making all NHS employment contracts include the right to raise concerns about care
  • Amended the NHS Constitution to strengthen the commitment to supporting staff who do so
  • Funding a national helpline – independent from employers and the Department of Health and completely confidential – to provide advice to anyone in health or social care who wants to raise a concern
  • A new duty of candour, so that organisations have a duty to admit mistakes and tell patients what has happened. A professional duty of candour enforced through professional regulators codes of conduct
  • A new criminal offence on those who deliberately provide false or misleading information
  • Reform of the CQC and inspection regime so that we assess whether hospitals have an open reporting culture and whether they treat staff who raise concerns properly
So what’s missing?   

Well, lots.

  • Accountability

There is no discussion about accountability of individuals within Trusts when they ignore raised concerns.

1. How will this be investigated and individuals held to account?

2. Who will investigate and how will they know when concerns have been ignored?

3. There also needs to be accountability of Chief Executives, HR Directors and other staff members when they persecute whistle blowers. To date this has yet to happen. Trust managers are left to their own devises and so do as they please, no questions asked.

4. Huge sums of public money is wasted on litigation, staff cover etc. in getting rid of whistle blowers which should have been spent on patients.

These sums of money should be publicly disclosed . The Treasury should be questioning these spends. Money should be spent on patients and not on litigation.

In my case, where I had raised concerns about potential fraud, I had written to George Osborne – the letter was ignored. I had written to NHS Counter Fraud – also ignored.

  • Employment Issue

Most staff, like myself, when they raise concerns feel that they are simply doing their job. They don’t consider their own personal safety in terms of employment. It’s only when false counter allegations are made against the whistleblower and the whistleblower is subsequently victimised, escorted out of a building, or placed on ‘garden leave’, that the whistleblower realises there is a problem, and they would have been wise to have considered their safety.

Having said that, most whistleblowers I have spoken to, and there are numerous, do not regret raising concerns and would do so again. Why? Because they believe in doing the right thing and they clearly care. Yet, these are the very people who are being victimised, suspended and dismissed.

There are however, some who would think twice and who could blame them.

Once suspended or dismissed, the whistleblowing case turns out to be an ‘employment’ issue. When this happens (or even before), no one intervenes or is willing to put a stop to the nonsense, despite it being in the public interest to do so.

Nearly all NHS whistleblowers I know, have written to Department of Health (DOH). Many have also written to Care Quality Commission, NHS London, No 10 and The Treasury. All of us are given the same response advising us about PIDA and that they, DOH etc, cannot get involved as there’s an ongoing employment case.

Fact of the matter is that there shouldn’t be an ‘ongoing employment case.’ This has happened as a direct result of whistleblowing and needs to be recognised as such.

It’s unacceptable that governing bodies hide by labelling whistleblowing, even when known,  as an ’employment’ issue and do nothing to help the whistleblower. Instead help the Trust behind the scene with legal funding and advice.

In my case I had contacted DOH after I had won Interim relief Hearing. Interim Relief Hearing before an employment tribunal is an option available to those who have been dismissed for whistleblowing to have their contract reinstated. So by winning the case, it  proved that I was dismissed as a direct result of whistleblowing.

Despite this, there was no help given and my case continued for another 18 months with escalating legal costs until settlement.

Cases are purposely dragged on by Trusts, in hope that you as an individual will give up due to the stress of high legal costs and pressure place on by your own legal team. Trusts are on the other hand have the advantage of being able to access legal help , without due care to the costs and so can afford for cases to drag on to the detriment of the whistleblower.

When a whistleblower has been dismissed as a result of whistleblowing, alternative work must be found of same standing.

Raj Mattu’s case dragged on for 13 years. Why? Where were DOH and The Treasury? Why did they not intervene? Did they not care? Are they not on top of things going on? Only they can answer these questions but what they cannot say is that they didn’t know.

  • Destruction of careers

Nearly in all cases, where a whistle blower has been dismissed, they are unable to find work again in the NHS. They face career and pension losses. They have lost their means to any source of income.

Many face losing their homes and marriage break down due to stress. Many NHS whistleblowers are blacklisted, which includes whistleblowers such as Ed Jesudason, Jennie Fecitt and myself.

It means no matter how many NHS jobs are applied for, they are never successful, despite being the strongest candidate. Offers are withdrawn. Interviews are cancelled, and posts withdrawn. This is a familiar pattern to all of us who have been blacklisted.

You may be mistakenly under the impression that once a case is settled, a whistleblower is paid huge sums of money to live on. This is not the case.

Despite winning my case, Ealing Trust did not allow me to return to my post.  They were determined not to have me back. I subsequently also won the appeal hearing. Following this, Ealing Trust advised DOH that my post was‘redundant’ due to ‘new technology’. One would have expected a prudent DOH  staff to have questioned this bizarre statement. However, DOH did not.  Despite winning my cases both in court and in the appeal, I lost my job for ever.

DOH was well aware mine was an ongoing whistleblowing case and despite a subsequent apology from the Trust which recognised me as a whistleblower I  was without help.

Trust paid me 2 year’s salary out of which I had to pay legal costs of £77,500. So not much left to live on. I am about to be made homeless as I run out of funds.

On settlement, if alternative work of same standing is not found, then the whistleblower should be paid their normal salary and have their pension reinstated until retirement.  

It’s bad enough that whistleblowers have lost their career and their world has been turned inside out, they should however, not be left looking for handouts.

  • Legal costs

NHS Trusts seem to have a bottomless pit when it comes to access to legal cover, paid by the public. Yet the public have no say in the matter. It’s their hard earned money ,and yet they have no voice. DOH and The Treasury however do, and on their behalf, should exercise this. However to date haven’t.

Whistleblowers on the other hand are left fighting for themselves incurring fast escalating  legal costs. Mine rose to £130,000 on a ‘no win, no fee’ basis.

Many end up having to re-mortgage or sell their homes as a result of having to defend themselves against a Trust, who are supported by DOH and The Treasury.

Most major unions are ill-equipped to help and support whistleblowers. There needs to be advise given by unions regarding their limitations. Unions are the first port of call for most whistleblowers.

Most whistleblowers end up seeking alternative legal advice. On winning a case, or on an out of court settlement, which really it should have never had got to in first place, Trusts should be liable for legal costs of the whistle blower.

Whistleblowers should not be liable for legal expenses which are solely due to Trusts’ wrongdoings. Currently this is the situation, even when a whistleblower wins.

Ideally, there should be a separate legal fund available for the whistleblowers. They should not be facing an unbalanced funding situation to access legal help. – Trusts have all available funding they want whereas whistleblowers have none.

Does no one care about NHS, publicly funded money being wasted? Clearly not. Raj Mattu’s case is a good example of this, where over £10million of public money has been wasted. Not to mention loss of an eminent cardiologist from the NHS and the destruction of a career. A huge tragedy all round.

Trusts should not be given an easy, ‘bottomless’ access to legal help funded by the taxpayer.

  • Effective Independent Body

There needs to be an effective body where a whistleblower can turn to. There also needs to be an effective independent body to whom Trusts are answerable to.

Currently, this does not exist and Trusts are given a free reign. Unless Trusts are held accountable for their actions, and their treatment of whistleblowers nothing will change.

There is no deterrent and things will carry on as they are as there is no incentive to change.

  • Gagging

Many whistleblowers with escalating legal costs have been ‘gagged’. This means that they are not allowed to speak up about any of their concerns or regarding their case. In return they are given sums of money by the Trusts. Unfortunately, due to pressures placed on whistle blowers many in the past have agreed to these terms and raised concerns remain ignored and patients’ safety is compromised. Many of us have refused to be ‘gagged’ and so are free to speak up. Thankfully, ‘gagging’ is now becoming a thing of the past. 

  • Public Inquiry

In order to have transparency so lessons can be learned for the future, it’s essential that there is a public inquiry regarding treatment of whistleblowers which include historic cases.

Just because a case has been settled, it does not mean that the whistle blower is sorted. Far from it. Whistleblowers continue to suffer financially, physically – due to ill health and frequently emotionally, well after settlement. These issues need to be investigated and rectified.

Making examples of whistleblowers sends out messages loud and clear to other staff members, i.e. ‘keep your head down or this could be you.’ Is this really what we want? Clearly not.

We need staff to speak up and it’s no good having a ‘Duty of Candour’, if when they do exercise their duty, they are dismissed.

We don’t need more policies, we need action. There is no point drafting more meaningless paperwork like PIDA, which no one acts upon and affords little or no protection to a whistleblower.

We need urgent change. Changes in our approach to how we treat staff who care enough to speak up. Care for our patients who trusts us to do the right thing and put things right when they are wrong. Care for the public who have trustingly contributed to the NHS.

Unless this happens, everyone loses out, not just the whistleblower who has bravely spoken up but more importantly the patient who depend on us.

Counter Fraud

Dr William (Bill) Lynn, Deputy Chief Executive of Ealing Hospital claimed  to The Evening Standard on 7 May 2014  that JUlie Lowe, the then chief executive commissioned an independent review with the NHS counter fraud team, which “found there was no case to answer” in regards to my raised concerns. I felt as a result, there was no choice but to bring to you the details of the ‘ independent investigation’. However, see below:

Counter Fraud Evidence

For best results, this should be read using Adobe Reader, 2 pages to a view

 

Civil servants tried to stop doctor warning minister of poor care

Leave a comment

The Sunday Times 11 May 2014

Martyn Halle Published: 11 May 2014

Raj Mattu: unfairly dismissed and now seeking damagesRaj Mattu: unfairly dismissed and now seeking damages (Richard Lappas)

CIVIL servants at the Department of Health have been implicated in an attempt to silence a doctor blowing the whistle on poor care.

Emails show that a department official suggested the doctor and his supporters should be prevented from raising safety concerns directly with ministers.

Dr Raj Mattu was suspended and eventually sacked by the University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust after complaining in 2001 about the standard of care in a cardiac unit. Last month an employment tribunal ruled he had been unfairly dismissed and he is now seeking £6.5m damages.

Documents about his case, released under the Freedom of Information Act, reveal how officials from various national health bodies joined meetings to discuss the case without Mattu’s knowledge.

In an email in 2009, Phill Shields, an official at the Department of Health’s business unit, wrote: “The problem we have is that Dr M and his supporters are clearing [sic] looking to escalate things again … we need to get on the front foot and brief ministers about the latest ‘development’ so when they are lobbied (hopefully) they will refuse to get involved in the issue. The last thing we want is for them to get an audience with a health minister.”

Referring to previous questioning of ministers about the Mattu case by MPs, Shields added: “From memory we have already had several adjournment debates about this individual and that is what we need to prevent.”Charlotte Leslie, a Tory MP and member of the Commons health committee, said: “I find it appalling that … officials were party to blocking a whistleblower, acting in the public interest, gaining access to ministers. If the people involved in this are still working for the NHS they need to be held to account.”

In July 2004, Stephen Ladyman, then a junior health minister, told MPs that disciplinary matters were a matter for NHS trusts and their employees. “That is right and proper and protects employees from Whitehall interference,” he said.

Despite that, an email written on January 5, 2005, by Ian Stone, adviser to Liam Donaldson, then chief medical officer, said: “At his request, I did brief Stephen Ladyman just before Christmas on the latest position.”

The documents also show that Stone and officials from the local strategic health authority and the General Medical Council were present at one or more meetings held with trust officials in 2002 and 2003 to discuss Mattu’s future.

Notes of a meeting held in September 2003 include a section entitled “routes available”. It identifies one advantage of allowing Mattu to return to work as “less noise”. In the event, Mattu was suspended on full pay for eight years before being sacked in 2010. Mattu, who last week met the current health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, said: “There needs to be an independent investigation into my suspension and dismissal.”

The Department of Health insisted there had been no undue interference and that protection for whistleblowers had been improved.

“Neither ministers nor officials tried to influence Dr Mattu’s case,” a spokesman said. “The department was clear that this case was a matter for the employer and the individual concerned.

“However, due to the very high level of parliamentary interest at the time, ministers were kept updated on its progress so they could answer MPs’ questions.”

Ladyman did not respond to requests for comment.