A consultant has won a landmark whistleblowing victory against NHS managers who tried to silence him when he spoke out against cuts.
Ramon Niekrash, a consultant urologist at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in south London, told Hospital Dr he hopes his case will now act as a “big stick” to deter other trusts from bullying their critics.
He has also criticised the amount of taxpayers’ money that the trust wasted in pursuing their vendetta against him.
“Managers used substantial amounts of taxpayers’ money with no accountability to silence a critic who in actual fact was trying to defend and support the patient. The taxpayers’ money hasn’t gone towards medical care it has been spent on silencing me.”
Niekrash was branded a troublemaker and suspended for ten weeks after he repeatedly raised concerns about patient safety.
An industrial tribunal has now ruled that his treatment, specifically his exclusion from the hospital, was in breach of whistleblowing legislation.
In a series of letters from 2005 Niekrash raised concerns about the closure of a urology ward; a cut in the number of specialist urology nurses; hospital acquired infections; the health and safety of patients and the trust’s clinical governance obligations.
He also complained about his contract and the job planning process and made allegations of widespread bullying and harassment in the surgical directorate in an attempt to achieve cost cuts.
The vast majority of letters received no response which prompted him to write further letters.
When he was suspended the medical staffing committee threatened to hold a vote of no confidence in the management which resulted in Niekrash being reinstated after ten weeks.
The tribunal ruled that letters written by the trust around the time of Niekrash’s whistleblowing were defamatory. It also found he suffered loss of reputation and private practice and injury to health and feelings as a result of his suspension. A separate hearing will decide on the level of compensation he will be awarded.
Niekrash said he had had to pursue the case in order to protect his reputation and because it was his moral duty as a doctor to protect his patients.
“I genuinely believed there was a moral issue. I did nothing for any pecuniary interest other than that which was genuinely for the benefit of the patient,” he said.
Arpita Dutt, partner at Russell Jones & Walker, who represented Niekrash, said it was difficult for a whistleblower to win a case because the legalities were complex. This meant any successful whistleblowing case was a landmark because it exposed issues in public services that were of wider interest to the general public.
Dutt said: “This case is also is a salient warning because we are in times of public spending cuts and we are seeing A&E departments and wards threatened with closure so there is likely to be an increase in this sort of tension that gives rise to whistleblowing.
“This means we have to be on guard for employers and NHS trusts taking this sort of attitude to whistleblowers. This case certainly sends out a strong message that should resonate throughout all public services.”
A South London Healthcare NHS Trust spokesperson pointed out that the incidents took place prior to the establishment in April 2009 of South London Healthcare NHS Trust, which now manages the Queen Elizabeth Hospital.
She said: “There are lessons to be learned from this case and the new trust absolutely believes in the importance of whistleblowing and encourages any staff members with concerns about patient safety to bring them to the attention of their managers straight away. We now have an environment and the correct processes in place so staff can feel confident that they can raise concerns without any fear. We are assured that the issues which led to this case would not have occurred under the new trust management.”
Tags: Suspended, Whistleblowing
The names of the managers who tried to silence the whistleblower ought to be published so that they don’t continue doing the same in a different hospital with a different title. Also, it will deter other managers from being very pushy.
Good for him.
Unfortunately the ‘loss of reputation and private practice and injury to health and feelings as a result of his suspension’ will take more taxpayers money away from patient care.
Its likely that the taxpayers money will be spent remunerating him for his loss of private earnings as he will still have been in receipt of his NHS salary whilst suspended.
Double whammy for the taxpayer and the patients. The Trust has wasted money and the private practice income has been maintained
I am delighted to see this result. One of the issues raised in all whistleblowing cases is the support (or lack of it) the blower receives from colleagues, both locally and nationally. Sadly, in today’s political, target-orientated culture too many people feel it is ‘expedient’ to ‘keep their heads down’ and ‘not cause a fuss’. Thus, the whistleblower is, almost by definition, regarded as a bit of an oddity!
We are still (I hope) professional people - which means that we are obliged to put ‘the best interest of the patient’ first. Wherever patient safety is put at risk, it is our duty to ’speak out’ - first through the ‘official channels’, but then publicly if the initial appraoch is disregarded. Where whistleblowers have a genuine case, they deserve the support, both private and public, of local colleagues and the ‘representatives of the profession’.
Maybe it is the mangers and members of the Trust who are responsible for the dangers who should be appearing before a tribunal!
This is the experience of doctors across the country. Fortunately, in spite of all these, there are several of us who will stand up to the system, when we think that patient safety is compromised, some times at great personal cost.That is probably why doctors continue to be trusted by the public despite several high profile cases against doctors.
The behaviour of management continues to be similar every where.
this is exactly what happens when you run a hospital like a business - in business, employees who openly criticise the company are fired or suspended. Managers in the NHS are simply behaving like CEO’s of private companies who are entirely focused on image and marketing. More privatisation can only exacerbate this situation. Successive governments have produced this system, and we need to hold them accountable for it.
On a lighter note, all medical managers are not bad.
Immediately after clinical concerns were raised at our trust concerning treatment at a neighbouring trust, a meeting was called with our medical director and that of the PCT. Our chief executive was informed immediately, and referrals to this centre were suspended until the results of a prospective audit which is currently underway. Local management has accepted their duty to take clinical concerns seriously, and have ensured a thorough objective assessment.
Congratulations to Niekrash and his supporting team who threated to walk out on management. It is this unity and support of clinicians only which can win such battles. There is now a growing trend in the NHS that some managers are undermining consultants and such incidences will restore confidence that truth will win in the end provided you stand united and support one and other.
Money NEVER played a part in any of this, Mr Niekrash could quite easily have lost his home and was willing to because he stood by what he believed in. You can not put a price on what you believe is right for patients. A prime example is the story in The Mercury which is onlie about a gentleman dying because his urology problem was left, not through the fault of the consultants but the hospital cost cutting.
A HOSPITAL CAN NOT FUNCTION WITHOUT A UROLOGY WARD.
Mr Niekrash I hope is proud of himself, I still think the management responsible for his bullying should be named and shamed.
Totally agree with a previous comment those other doctors responsible for bullying should be published for all to see!