Archives

Whistleblowing in the NHS – how safe are you?

This is a question for staff and patients in the NHS.

 Sharmila Chowdhury 4 August 2014

 

As an NHS staff if I suspect something is wrong, simplest thing would be to raise my concerns to my line manager. Simple. After all, we have decided to work for the NHS because we care? We care for patients and other staff who are placed under our care. Our managers would be grateful to us, surely, and make arrangements to investigate and where appropriate, put things right. After all it’s in patients’ interest. Wrong. This is not how the NHS currently works in many hospitals, care homes, institutions and clinics.

 

Staff do need to raise concerns – why? Because, like in most walks of life, there will be situations which needs special attention. There could be issues, such as potential fraud, mismanagement of resources, safety issues, staff training issues which can relate to  both staff and patients. There are of course, numerous more examples. As staff we have it ‘ingrained’ into us as part of our training about having ‘duty of care’ and reporting anything that we feel needs attention. Doing otherwise and ignoring would constitute neglect. Staff being able to safely raise concerns is vital to patient safety.

 

One of the earliest NHS whistleblower who has been in the public domain has been Steve Bolsin, who first raised concerns over 20 years ago about children’s heart surgery at Bristol. He is now based in Australia. Since then not much has changed. Whistleblowers’ raised concerns are still ignored despite in many cases, having extensive evidences. Whistleblowers are subsequently victimised and persecuted and find themselves being accused with false counter allegations, despite in most cases there are lack of evidence of any wrong doing. In some cases hyped up to be more serious than it really is as in David Drew, who was accused of quoting bible in a meeting. This was deemed to be more serious than the concerns he had raised about child safety, which led to the death of a child due to arrogance and neglect.

 

Whistleblowers within NHS come from a wide range of occupation, which include Chief Executives, such as Gary Walker and John Watkinson. Both raised patient safety concerns and both lost their jobs.

 

Since becoming a whistleblower myself, nearly 5 years ago and developing my website, I have been in contact with numerous whistleblowers. Many of the cases are devastating where the whistleblower have suffered gross injustice. Many cases are truly heartbreaking.

 

One example, is that of a senior staff member who was raised concerns about dealings with child abuse. She has now not only been left without a job, she is homeless, and now lives in a friend’s garage and depends on provisions from food bank. Another is a single mother of 2, who also now has to rely on food bank and in due time may have her home repossessed. I too, am likely to lose my home soon whilst suffering cancer.

 

My case is perfectly summarised by Courtesy of NHS Mess @NH_Mess

CARTOON

Many of the whistlebowers face years of stress. Many end up having counselling or have nervous breakdowns. It has profound effect on close family & friends. Many relationships breakdown under stress as in reported cases of Edwin Jesudason and Gary Walker. Sangita, Raj Mattu’s wife on Channel 4 news said that they have been unable to have children due to ongoing legal battle and stress.  There are also known whistleblowers who have committed suicide or have suffered mental breakdowns, as it all got too much for them. Their health take a toll. David Drew has suffered serious health problems, despite leading a healthy life. I have developed cancer, which numerous consultants believe is stress related.

 

There are very few known whistleblowers who have faced legal battle with their trust and have return to their workplace. I only know of one – Ramon Niekrash. However, he was left with legal fees of £120,000. Nearly all NHS whistleblowers, once dismissed, never return to their workplace. Very few continue to work in their field of expertise and even fewer manage to secure permanent posts. This is because of existence of blacklisting within the NHS. There is of course in addition gradual loss of skills once being unemployed. For many, only option is to leave the country and look for work in other parts of the world, such as Steve Bolsin.

 

So why do whistleblower’s bother to raise concerns or blow the whistle where not only are their concerns on the whole are ignored but their whole career is destroyed? Because on most occasions, they feel they are simply doing their job and are confident that their concerns will be sorted. Very few give a thought for their own safety as naively it never enters their head. However, having made an example of a whistleblower, trusts send out a strong message to other potential whistleblowers. Many are deterred from speaking up. This means that patient’s safety is compromised. If staff are too scared to speak up, it means that the risk factor is never investigated, let alone sorted.

 

So why are whistleblowers persecuted? In some cases by bringing to light the concerns could be a source of embarrassment to senior managers and could attract unwanted publicity. It could be a costly expense to fix and organisations may have targets they have to meet.  Individuals within the organisation may have vested interest for example, as in cases of theft and fraud. It could also be due to basic retaliation of ‘I go or they go’ (this could be due to the whistleblower having raised concerns about them) or it could be that individuals are looking out for their colleagues who have done wrong, but have a strong position in their organisation.

 

 Watch the dynamics of whistleblowing

 

Those spending public money covering up their wrongdoing have been getting away with it for over 15 years, since Public Interest Disclosure Act, PIDA, was introduced.

 

The Chief Executive, The Medical Director and The HR Director are ultimately responsible within Trusts to ensure that victimisation of whistleblower does not happen, but unfortunately far too often, they are part of the victimisation. Trusts are given easy access to legal funds which are paid by taxpaying public. These funds are authorised by the Department of Health and paid out by The Treasury.

 

Ironically, huge sums of money which should have gone into patient care is used to fight and get rid of whistleblowers – the very people who care and want to protect the patients and the health service. It would be interesting to survey the tax paying public to have their views on their hard earned money is continually being wasted on getting rid of whistleblowers. After all, they are paying for this wastage. Raj Mattu’s case is a good example, where not only did Raj suffer for 13 years, but it has costed the tax payer £20m. Money which should have been used to benefit the patient. In addition, more recently, case of Arjuna Weerasinghe, where seven figure settlement is now being considered.

 

Of course, it isn’t just money that is being wasted, but there is also huge waste of expertise at all levels, which is being drained from the NHS. The very people who care what happens in the NHS are the very people who are being removed and having their lives destroyed.

 

Why is this allowed to happen? Nearly all whistleblowers once they realise they are in trouble and are in need of urgent help their first port of call is to their unions. I have yet to meet a whistleblower who has been successfully supported by their union throughout the ordeal. I am not sure whether this is due to lack of understanding, lack of money, or simply they want to remain in good terms with individual organisations. Strange as it may seem, in some instances, unions have turned on their own members.

 

The next step for a whistleblower is to get legal advice. Some firms are happy to give free short advice over the phone. Consultations can be expensive but vary. Mine cost £398 per hour, four years ago. Often with no money, whistleblowers setlle for ‘no win, no fee’ arrangement. However, legal costs escalate at an alarming rate. Many turn to policies in their home insurance. This has certainly saved the day for many, such as Anabelle (Loo) Blackburn and Jennie Fecitt. However, unfortunately some, such as mine, there was an opt-out clause, where if you belonged to a union, your policy will not be covered. My legal fees had escalated to £130,000 on a ‘no win – no fee’ basis.

 

Nearly all whistleblowers I have come across had written to both Care Quality Commission and Department of Health for help. Virtually all have been left without help, despite having strong evidence. Nearly all have received a standard reply, which stated that they could not get involved due to ongoing legal case. So, where is a whistleblower to go when they find themselves in deep water? Nowehere, is the answer. No one will intervene or inspect surroundings of the case. Cases are frequently dragged out over years before reaching a settlement. This is often deliberate attempt by Trusts who have endless legal funds to drain any funds that the whistleblower may have, to reach a settlement in their desperation. Also, if they are on ‘no win –no fee’ arrangement, they often have to settle out of court with substandard pay-outs, often just enough to cover their huge legal expense.

 

In contrast, trusts and organisations are fully supported with advice and access to funds by The Department of Health. So, stating that either Department of Health or Care Quality Commission cannot get involved in their response to a whistleblower is untrue. They do get involved, but simply not on the side of the whistleblower.

 

So, having suffered over the years and finally reaching some sort of settlement, you would think that there will be some help. No, is the answer. With career and any remote job prospects, livelihood, personal life and health destroyed, there is simply no help.  Even when proven to be a whistleblower by courts, there is no help. Whistleblowers are left abandoned. So, who should be there to ensure that whistleblowers, responsible members of our society are taken care of?  Fingers currently point to Jeremy Hunt and The Department of Health. After all they are ultimately responsible for the running of the health service. To say that they ‘cannot get involved’ is no longer acceptable. Hunt has instigated review into NHS whistleblowing led by Sir Robert Francis QC. Results  and recommendations of which are due in November. This is a step forward. However, any recommendations made will need to be effectively implemented and not ignored.

 

I have yet to hear of any senior managers, directors, executives held to account for their treatment of whistleblowers. Yet, nearly all NHS organisations now have whistleblowing policies. Clearly, written policies are not worth the paper they are written on if no one acts on them. It needs a responsible governing body to take responsibility and ensure that all staff, patients and public for whom they are in charge have an in depth understanding, compassion, leadership and willingness to drive this forward. Until this happens, lives of both patients and staff will continue to be destroyed.

 

For more information and articles on whistleblowing visit sharmilachowdhury.com

Whistleblowers are promised more protection and new jobs

The Times Health News
  • Sir Robert Francis, QC
    Sir Robert Francis, QC, is pledging to prise open an NHS ‘closed ranks culture’ Dominic Lipinski/PA
Chris Smyth Health Correspondent
Last updated at 12:01AM, August 7 2014

NHS whistleblowers could have their claims judged by independent regulators and be shepherded into new jobs under plans to end a “climate of fear” in the health service.

Sir Robert Francis, QC, is pledging to prise open an NHS “closed ranks culture” that harms patient care as he launches a review into staff victimised for speaking out. Today he urges doctors and nurses to tell him what is going wrong. Campaigners welcomed the pledge, saying it was vital to stop whistleblowers from being blacklisted and demanding the government takes responsibility for protecting them.

Writing on thetimes.co.uk today, Sir Robert says: “There are far too many reports of professionals reporting they have been victimised or forced from their jobs because they spoke out… The fear generated by all this is very real. Fear feeds on fear, which inevitably deters others from coming forward.”

Sir Robert chaired a public inquiry into the Mid Staffordshire scandal, where he concluded that appalling suffering had been inflicted on hundreds of patients by bullying managers who ignored the concerns of workers. He writes today that he was “struck by the fear some staff had to voice their concerns”, citing a consultant who insisted on meeting secretly at his home and a nurse whispering in terror at making an “innocuous suggestion” for change.

His review will scrutinise prominent whistleblowing cases from the past as well as exploring the experience of staff still working in the NHS in an attempt to make sure that doctors and nurses feel free to raise concerns, that they are listened to and that they are not victimised as a result.

“We need to do more to ensure that staff who are worried that something is going wrong feel totally free to talk about it,” Sir Robert writes, outlining a series of solutions he is considering.

These include making it easier for staff to raise concerns with someone independent and “arms-length scrutiny where conflict arises when someone speaks up” so that bosses are not marking their own homework.

Acknowledging that many whistleblowers struggle to find work again, he says there must be “better means of retaining the services of those who have unfairly lost their jobs for doing the right thing”, including mechanisms for staff who win tribunals to get back in to the NHS.

Cathy James, chief executive of the charity Public Concern at Work, said: “Getting jobs in the NHS is a key problem. Although there are lots of different employers, once someone is labelled a whistleblower that’s akin to a troublemaker and they can be blacklisted.”

However, Mark Porter, chairman of the British Medical Association Council, said: “Putting protections in place for staff who raise concerns is a vital part of the solution but it does not fix the underlying issue. It is in the interests of both staff and their patients to look much more closely at the culture across the NHS, which has left staff unwilling to provide feedback or raise concerns for fear of reprisals.”

Kim Holt, of the whistleblowers’ group Patients First, agreed that the “bullying culture” needed to be tackled at root, insisting that “things go wrong when concerns aren’t addressed early enough”.

Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, said: “We still hear of staff concerns being ignored. That’s why I have asked Sir Robert to undertake this review, which will look at what more we can do to create an open culture where NHS workers are protected and encouraged to speak out in the best interests of patients.”

Robert Francis – Fear must not stop whistleblowers coming forward

The Times 7 August 2014

Robert Francis
Published at 12:01AM, August 7 2014

I want to hear suggestions about how best we can encourage people to speak out

Many patients and those close to them came to the Mid Staffordshire inquiries to tell me about awful care and indignity at the hands of a service that was meant to be effective, safe and compassionate. Their stories had an incredibly powerful impact – not just on me but on everyone who read the reports.

Sadly, I was struck by the fear some staff had in coming forward to voice their concerns. One nurse I met in a corridor whispered “I cannot believe I am saying this” before outlining an innocuous suggestion for change. A senior consultant was so afraid that he insisted on meeting me secretly at his home. A brave nurse, Helene Donnelly, felt so unsafe after reporting unacceptable practice that she left to work elsewhere. I was approached by a trainee from a different part of the NHS who had been report made by a chief executive – for sharing her concern with the person chairing the trust when asked if she was worried about anything.

There are far too many reports of professionals reporting that they have been victimised or forced from their jobs because they spoke out. Only last week the public accounts committee report on whistleblowing concluded that “too often whistleblowers have been shockingly treated”. The fear generated by all this is very real. Fear feeds on fear, which inevitably deters others from coming forward.

Many recent initiatives should help replace this climate of fear with openness, transparency and a commitment to patients. Last month the Care Quality Commission launched consultations on the new regulations for fundamental standards, the duty of candour and the fit and proper person test for directors.

Taken together these measures should form the foundation that enables people to speak up, for concerns to be addressed, and for accountability where that is needed.

But we need to do more to ensure that staff who are worried that something is going wrong feel totally free to talk about it. I am open to any constructive suggestion about what can be done, but the areas I am interested in include:

• Making it easier for worried staff to raise important concerns with someone independent from their manager, or even their employer;

• Better recording of concerns raised and the action taken on them;

• Arms-length scrutiny where conflict arises when someone speaks up;

• Better procedures to ensure that honestly speaking up about important issues does not adversely affect careers without impeding the fair management of proper concerns about staff;

• Mediation or other assistance by third parties to help resolve disputes;

• Better means of retaining the services of those who have unfairly lost their jobs for doing the right thing.

That is why I welcomed the chance to undertake the Freedom to Speak Up review. We have to learn from all experiences, good and bad, of those who have raised serious concerns and identify confidence-building measures.

I want to hear ideas from all NHS workers, employers and representative organisations. Details of how individual submissions can be made are on our website (www.freedomtospeakup.org.uk, currently in development). I have commissioned research into the how well the current system for reporting concerns works, and I will hold a series of seminars so I can hear about possible solutions to the problems we face.

We must value those who are bold enough to speak out as celebrated champions of patients and the public interest, and ensure that those who do not feel confident become so. All staff should see it as both a right and a duty. If we can achieve this the prize is a safer NHS

Sir Robert Francis, QC, led the report into Mid Staffordshire

Freedom to Speak Up – Independent Review into NHS Whistleblowing

Independent Review has been launched today led by Sir Robert Francis QC, looking into whistleblowing in the NHS. He will have a dedicated team who will be assisting him with the review.

Sir Robert Francis has appointed a series of advisers to support his work: Norman Williams, former president of the Royal College of Surgeons; Peter Homa, chief executive of Nottingham University Hospitals Trust and Kath Fenton, chief nurse at University College London Hospitals Foundation Trust.

The review will host a series of seminars in the autumn to explore key issues and solutions.

Two separate pieces of research into whistleblowing in the NHS and the views of NHS staff will be conducted at Middlesex and Greenwich universities.

The review secretariat will be led by Joanna Donaldson, the HR director of the Department for Business Innovation and Skills.

Robert Francis, head of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust inquiry
Sir Robert Francis QC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This has been come about as a result of  a group of six whistleblowers requesting for a public inquiry into their cases, so that lessons can be learnt,  and correct remedy for the future can be implemented in order to protect patients and whistleblowers. The six whistleblowers are: Sharmila Chowdhury, David Drew, Annabelle Blackburn, Jennie Fecitt, Edwin Jesudasson and Narinder Kapur.

Speaking to Health Service Journal, Sir Robert will also meet personally with selected whistleblowers, but will not make judgments on individual cases. He said all information would be treated in the “strictest confidence”. “We have gone to great pains to set up our website and emails so they are completely controlled by us and independent of any government organisations,” Sir Robert said.

Jeremy Hunt, Health Secretary, opted for a review rather than an inquiry according to The Times,  as he felt this would take shorter time, and some changes could be implemented prior to election. The review will be unable to intervene in individual cases.

 

Speaking to Shaun Lintern, Health Service Journal, Sir Francis said the review would examine whether hospital managers should be held more accountable for their involvement in cover ups.

“There should be consequences for that,” he added. “We should no longer tolerate people being in effect exiled from the health service because they have raised concerns,” he said.

This is called Freedom to Speak up as it will include all, not just who have reported or whistleblew externally.  It will be helpful for the team, if the submissions are focussed and clearly written. Survey is of all NHS workers and organisations.  The team want to hear of positive as well as negative stories of whistleblowing.  The submissions will start today & will end on 10 September. The report will be available in November this year.

 

Terms of reference and confidentiality

 

Some related articles leading up to review:

NHS whistleblowers to air complaint with Jeremy Hunt

Letter to Jeremy Hunt

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

NHS may face whistleblower public inquiry

ITV London –

meeting with Hunt & Stevens

Ministers order inquiry into NHS whistleblowing

Hunt vows to punish NHS bullies

Message from Jeremy Hunt Jeremy Hunt –

Message from a whistleblower  

Independent review urges whsitleblowers to speak

I reported my concerns and was given the brush off

 

 For further details and submissions please visit:  http://freedomtospeakup.org.uk/

 

To contribute to the review

 

For article in the HSJ please visit: HSJ Website

 

Independent review urges NHS whistleblowers to speak

The Sunday Telegraph 3 August 2014

Sir Robert Francis, head of the Mid Staffs public inquiry, calls for an end to a culture of ‘denial and fear’ as he launches first ever independent review of whistleblowing

Sir Robert Francis, the chairman of the public inquiry into the Mid Staffs scandal

Sir Robert Francis, the chairman of the public inquiry into the Mid Staffs scandal Photo: PA

By Laura Donnelly and Patrick Sawer

Whistleblowers who have tried to raise the alarm over risks to hospital patients will be urged to come forward, amid fears that too many have been hounded out by a “culture of denial and fear” in parts of the NHS.

Sir Robert Francis, the chairman of the public inquiry into the Mid Staffs scandal, will this week launch the first independent review of whistleblowing in the NHS, and call on those who have been mistreated to speak out.

The investigation is expected to begin on Wednesday, when the barrister will announce his panel and ask those who have been affected to come forward.

Last night he told The Sunday Telegraph that the inquiry will examine what changes the NHS needs to make to ensure that in future, staff receive support if they try to raise concerns about quality and safety of care.

“Every time a whistleblower is treated badly or says they have been treated badly, many people are deterred from speaking up – The Mid Staffordshire Public Inquiry showed the appalling consequences for patients when there is a culture of denial and fear,” Sir Robert said.

“Through the Freedom to Speak Up Review I want to find out what more we need to do to support staff to raise concerns, and make sure the NHS listens to them,” he said.

The public inquiry into Mid Staffs heard repeated evidence of how nurses and doctors who tried to warn that lives were being put at risk were bullied by colleagues and managers who were more concerned that the trust hit Labour’s NHS targets.

The Care Quality Commission, the regulator of health and social care, has also been dogged by accusations that it presided over a “cover up” of its failings, and put the reputation of the NHS ahead of patient safety.

Earlier this year, Sir Robert said he feared that attempts to bully and suppress those with concerns were even more common than he had thought, with increasing numbers of whistleblowers contacting him since his landmark report to Government last year.

This week those who have attempted to raise safety concerns will be invited to share their accounts with Sir Robert’s review, which will then invite witnesses to seminar hearings, before publishing its recommendations in November.

The review is likely to consider evidence from dozens of NHS staff and former employees, who say their careers have been left in tatters after warning that patients’ lives had been put at risk by cost-cutting or by too great an emphasis on Whitehall targets.

Earlier this year, Jeremy Hunt wrote to all health workers emphasising their rights to speak out about safety concerns, and promising changes to make it easier to do so.

Charlotte Leslie, a Conservative member of the Commons health select committee said she hoped the review would herald a turning point in NHS history.

She said: “For a decade or more, the message has been in the NHS that if you are clinician and speak out for patient safety, you can expect to be discredited, smeared and lose your livelihood. But if you are a manager doing a bad job or hiding the truth, you can often expect a promotion.”

She said that Jeremy Hunt had shown guts in tackling “a lethal taboo” in the NHS which had ended too many careers.

Public service whistleblowers ‘treated shockingly’, report finds

The Guardian
Report accuses ministers of failing to protect whistleblowers despite their role in exposing a series of major scandals

 

Margaret Hodge aelsaid she was dismayed by way ministers failed to protect public interest

Margaret Hodge, the committee chair, said she was dismayed by the way ministers and senior managers failed to protect the public interest. Photograph: Richard Gardner/REX

Whistleblowers who risk their careers to uncover wrongdoing within public services are being victimised by managers who nearly always escape sanction, a public accounts committee report will say on Friday.

MPs were told that only one senior manager who has victimised a whistleblower has ever faced disciplinary procedures, while many government departments are still failing to support employees who come forward in the public interest.

The report also accuses ministers of failing to put in place effective policies to protect whistleblowers despite their role in exposing a series of major scandals including avoidable deaths at Mid Staffs NHS hospital trust and policing of the Hillsborough football stadium tragedy.

Margaret Hodge, the committee chair, said she had been dismayed by the way ministers and senior managers have failed to protect the public interest.

“A positive approach to whistleblowing should exist wherever the taxpayer’s pound is spent, by private and voluntary sector providers as well as public bodies. However, far too often, whistleblowers have been shockingly treated, and departments have sometimes failed to protect some whistleblowers from being victimised.”

MPs found there was a “startling disconnect” between Whitehall’s generally good whistleblowing policies and the way they operated in practice. It said that officials who did try to raise concerns often had to show “remarkable courage” in coming forward, and warned that the failure to provide effective protection could deter others from doing the same.

The report cited the example of Kay Sheldon, a member of the board of the Care Quality Commission, who was “victimised” by senior officials after she tried to raise concerns.

In evidence to the committee, Sheldon described how attempts were made to discredit her – including the drawing up of a secret report on her mental health. But while her concerns were subsequently vindicated, the committee said it appeared no one had faced any form of sanction over her treatment.

The committee said the treatment of whistleblowers was often shocking, with bullying and harassment from colleagues, but government departments were unable to say whether any action had been taken against their persecutors.

The charity Public Concern at Work was able to identify one example when a manager in the NHS was punished for victimising a whistleblower. The manager was eventually dismissed, the committee was told.

The committee has previously expressed concern that their members have been approached by whistleblowers because many government employees do not trust managers to take up their complaints.

MPs on the committee uncovered a “sweetheart deal” with Goldman Sachs, when tax officials wrote off up to £20m in interest payments owed by the bank. They did so after HMRC solicitor Osita Mba wrote to the committee and the National Audit Office with his concerns at the deal under whistleblowing legislation.

Managers at HMRC threatened to sack and prosecute Mba for disclosing information – but withdrew the threat after Hodge’s intervention.

Employees of welfare-to-work companies have also given evidence to the committee about wrongdoing in outsourcing companies.

South Norfolk MP Richard Bacon, a Tory member of the committee, said: “In theory, many departments have improved their whistleblowing policies but the civil service culture does not encourage those with concerns to speak up. Moreover, Whitehall’s inconsistent approach to whistleblowing has left one-third of civil servants not knowing how to raise a concern under the civil service code.”

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”.

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.

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.”

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.”

 

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 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 →

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.

The Speaking Out Summit (SOS)

The Speaking Out Summit to be held on Thursday 8 May 2014

Roy Lilley Roy Lilley

The summit will be introduced by Roy Lilley.

Roy Lilley is an independent health policy analyst, writer, broadcaster and commentator on health and social issues. Previously, a Visiting Fellow at the Management School, Imperial College London, he was also formerly at the Centre for Health Services Management at the University of Nottingham.

‘The Speaking Out Summit seeks to stimulate, debate and achieve consensus on a way forward for people and health trusts on the subject of speaking up and whistleblowing.’

 Speakers include Sir Robert Naylor, who is the chief Executive of University College London Hospitals (UCLH) who will discuss his approach to whistleblowing.

Dr Phil Hammond

Doctor GP and comedian Phil Hammond, who was a whistle blower at the Bristol baby hospital, who will be discussing , ‘Why are we where we are?’  Website

There will presentations from  whistleblowers Gary Walker and Dr David Drew.

Gary Walker

Gary was previously Chief executive at United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust and spoke out over patient safety concerns.

David Drew

David is a former well respected pediatrician who blew the whistle on competence of a colleague. All delegates will be given a free copy of  David’s new book

Other speakers include James Titcombe, who is the national advisor on patient safety, culture and quality at CQC.  James will be discussing the role of the regulator and how it can be advanced.

Dean Royles, Chief Executive, NHS Employers will be discussing  why whistleblowing needs to happen. Royles was appointed as chief executive for NHS Employers in December 2010. Previous roles include director of workforce and education at NHS North West; director of HR and communications at United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust and deputy director of workforce for the NHS at the Department of Health, where he was responsible for developing a national HR strategy for the NHS.

Prof Christopher Newdick, Professor of Health Law at Reading University,  will talk about the legal imperatives for speaking out.  Professor Newdickcurrently teaches LLB in medical and contract law and is also a barrister.

Other speakers include, Dr Suzanne Shale, – Ethics Consultant, Dr Paul Hodgkin – Founder of Patient Opinion and Dr Jenny King – Edgecumbe Group.

In this full day event there will workshop sessions from experts in whistleblowing law, conflict resolution, organisational/leadership dynamics and enquiry management.

The Summit aims to create and promote best practice guidance for anyone involved in whistleblowing and speaking out, in any capacity, as well providing an intelligent and safe forum for discussion and debate.

Bookings and  further Information

David Drew – Author of Little Stories of Life and Death

th1. Tell us briefly about yourself–

I’m 66. I have been married to a lovely woman for 43 years. We have 4 happily married children and (so far) 8 grandchildren. I qualified as a doctor in Bristol and trained there and in Birmingham to be a paediatrician.From 1977 to 1984 I worked in refugee camps in Indo-China and then at a University Teaching Hospital in Nigeria. After coming home for our children’s education I worked as a locum paediatric consultant in the West Midlands. From 1992 to 2010 I was a full-time consultant at the Manor Hospital in Walsall. In 2010 I was dismissed for Gross Misconduct and Insubordination. I have been unable to work as a paediatrician since then. I have unsuccessfully pursued Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust in the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal. I now work full time campaigning for the protection of NHS whistleblowers.

2. What inspired you to write a book?-

My eldest son, Simon, a PhD paeleo-ecologist pressurised me into it. I found it too painful, too wearying to go over the old ground and construct an interesting and readable narrative. Simon gave me the start and once I got going, with his insights and energy, I found a story I knew had to be told.

3. Tell us about the book-

It’s autobiographical. It begins with the disciplinary hearing in which the Director of Nursing at Walsall, Sue Hartley (I have used real names throughout), pronounces the death sentence over my medical career. The following chapters are a retrospective of childhood, medical school, postgraduate training and our years working abroad. After some years working as a consultant locum I arrive, in chapter 10, in Walsall. I have 9 enjoyable years doing mainly clinical work before being appointed head of department.

The “Troubles” occupy the years 2008 to 2010. These are the years in which I raise serious concerns about a paediatric consultant’s competency and conduct and subsequently mismanagement and service failure including major problems with child protection. This leads ultimately to my dismissal. I describe the internal disciplinary procedures and my recourse to law. It is an on-going story but in chapter 45 I find a resolution in a different kind of life.

4. Who is it suitable for?–

Its for anyone interested in justice. Justice for patients and their relatives. justice for frontline staff who are bullied and punished for raising concerns. I believe every NHS frontline worker will appreciate, enjoy and learn from this story. Politicians, NHS managers, whistleblowers will benefit from reading it. Walsall Healthcare senior management seized upon an aspect of my rather quiet Christian faith to help destroy my career using a technicality in employment law. I believe those of any faith or none will learn about the importance of peaceful coexistence in society and in he workplace from my story. It is written in appreciation of some of the medical and nursing staff at Walsall Manor Hospital who suffered under an oppressive administration from 2008 to 2010.

Patients and parents who are sometimes left wondering what is going on inside the NHS will learn from this account of what can happen in a poorly led hospital. I wrote this book also for the family of Kyle Keen. “Kyle was unlawfully killed following catastrophic failures in basic safeguarding at Walsall Manor Hospital” as the dedication page reads.His family were never told this. I asked a Royal College of Paediatrics review panel to investigate this but they ignored me. To this day Kyle’s family have not learned what these failures were, how they were allowed to happen or why they have never been told.

5. What is your favourite part in the book?-

I cannot choose. There is so much here about life and death, truth and lies, patient safety and harm, philanthropy and self-interest. I cannot choose. My theme ultimately is about truth, forgiveness and reconciliation. I have survived as a ruined whistleblower because I need to forgive the people who did this to me and the journey towards that place (I have not yet fully arrived) has taught me things about myself I did not know and provided me with resources I knew nothing about. In the words of Joseph to his brothers who had sold him into Egyptian slavery, “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good”. (Genesis 50:20) I am convinced good will come from my experience and from this book.

GetImageSelect to purchase The Little Stories of Life and death

Tel: 01162 792 299

e-book will be available in a week

“A book the NHS has been waiting for.”

Dr Phil Hammond, Private Eye

NHS Heros

There are numerous NHS whistleblowers who have had their lives destroyed in pursuit of protecting patients and the public.  Far too many to mention. I have included some of the whistleblowers who have been in the media. Select to read their stories.

Tracy Boylin          Dr David Drew             Dr Kim Holt          Raj Mattu

Edwin Jesudason             John Watkinson              Jennie Fecitt      

Julie Bailey           Sandra Haynes Kirkbright            Gary Walker

Ramon Niekrash          Helene Donnelly      Professor Narinder Kapur       

Margaret Haywood             Dr Peter Wilmshurst          Steve Bolsin

Shiban Ahmed         Loo Blackburn           Elsie Gayle

Inquiry for NHS treatment of Whistleblowers

Leading doctor calls for inquiry into NHS treatment of whistle-blowers
DRaj-Mattur Raj Mattu Heart surgeon who raised alarm about poor care was found to have been wrongly dismissed
The treatment of NHS whistle-blowers must be subject to a public inquiry, a leading doctor and patient safety pioneer has said, after a heart surgeon who raised the alarm about poor care was found to have been wrongly dismissed by his hospital.

His intervention comes after a tribunal ruled on Wednesday that Dr Raj Mattu, a heart surgeon, was unfairly sacked by University Hospital of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust in 2010, nine years after exposing the cases of two patients who died in crowded bays at the Walgrave Hospital in Coventry.

The tribunal ruled that Dr Mattu had been “subjected to many detriments by the Trust” because of his whistleblowing. The Trust ran up legal fees of £6m pursuing claims against him, and his solicitors said he had been “vilified, bullied and harassed out of a job he loved.”

 

Professor Jarman, director of influential hospital data analyst the Dr Foster Unit, said the case proved that “something must be done” about the treatment of whistle-blowers in the NHS, for the good of patient safety.

“It’s never really been properly solved. In the States you can get paid for whistleblowing. In the airline industry if you don’t report a problem within a certain period of time you get into trouble, and if you do, you’re considered to be doing a good thing,” he said. “We’ve reached the point where we’ve got to have something done…one would prefer a public inquiry where witnesses can be subpoenaed and must give evidence on oath.”

He added that all hospitals should appoint a board member responsible for whistle-blowing.

Mr Hunt has spoken out about the treatment of whistle-blowers in the NHS and recently wrote to all NHS trusts to remind them of their responsibility to allow staff to be honest and open about concerns over patient care.

A Department of Health spokesperson said Dr Mattu’s case highlighted “the vital importance of openness”