Health secretary Andy Burnham is coming under pressure to investigate the unfair treatment of NHS whistleblowers.
More than 2,000 people have signed a petition calling on Burnham to explain why suspended consultant pediatrician Dr Kim Holt, who was vindicated by an investigation after she criticised the clinic which sent Baby P home to die, has not been reinstated.
Holt has spent the last three years on paid “special leave” after warning - more than a year before Baby P came to the clinic in Haringey - that she and other doctors there were dangerously overworked and a child would die unless action was taken.
In December 2009, her employer, Great Ormond Street Hospital, promised to reach a “swift and amicable solution” and implement the recommendations of an NHS London report. One of these was that Holt had done nothing wrong and should be reinstated.
At one point the trust offered her £120,000 if she would sign a statement saying all her concerns had been addressed, an offer she rejected on the grounds that it would have be “fraudulent” of her to do so.
The petition, organised by a group of doctors, calls for Holt to be reinstated and urges Burnham to explain why a service that is stretched to dangerous levels has been denied the skills of an experience paediatrician at great public expense.
It also asks him to explain why professionals who attempt to raise concerns about systemic failures in the NHS continue to be treated so negatively. The group has also sent a letter The Lancet asking why Holt should not be reinstated when the GMC code of conduct obliges doctors to raise concerns about patient safety.
Holt’s case follows that of Ramon Niekrash who won an employment tribunal case against Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woolwich, after he was victimised for raising concerns about cost cutting.
In another whistleblowing scandal, in February, an inquiry into the Stafford Hospital scandal heard that medical staff who tried to warn of failings at the trust were threatened into silence by NHS managers.
Holt’s MP Lynne Featherstone, Liberal Democrat MP for Hornsey and Wood Green, has also challenged Burnham by tabling some parliamentary questions asking why Holt has not been reinstated.
She said: “It is an appalling waste of public money not to allow Kim back to work. The investigation found she was an exemplary pediatrician with a flawless track record who should be reinstated with mediation.
“The NHS London report was quite damming. It said there were management failures but non of the recommendations addressed those issues, they only applied to getting Kim back to work. I thought this was a cop out.
Featherstone said the report in particular did not address the fact that management failed to take on board the warnings of four senior consultant paediatricians who signed a letter to saying children were in danger. “The hospital basically turned on the messenger,” she said.
Holt said: ”This is about the quality of children’s services, the fact that people should be able to raise concerns without fear of losing their jobs, the use of money to try and silence people and poor management of people and resources. It is a much bigger issue than just my job now, this has ramifications for the whole of the NHS.
“I am still being victimised and not being allowed to do the job I love. I am currently working on secondment but it is not a proper job. This sends a very bad message to other doctors.”
A spokesman for GOSH said they were unable to respond to the criticisms: “We don’t feel we can run a process of mediation and debate the fine detail in public at the same time. We are absolutely committed to trying to find a mutually satisfactory resolution to these issues as fast as we can.”
Holt questioned whether the trust were committed to the process with four months having elapsed since the NHS London report, and suggested the recommendations were too vague.
Tags: Suspended, Whistleblowing
‘A spokesman for GOSH said they were unable to respond to the criticisms: “We don’t feel we can run a process of mediation and debate the fine detail in public at the same time…’
>What evidence exists to indicate that GOSH is even party to a mediation process, let alone ‘running’ one?
This is a public debate because of the NHS London investigation.
This is of public interest due to the nature of the concerns, the use or misuse of public money and the way that a doctor who raised valid concerns has been treated.
Trusts need to consider that their employees have professional duties as well as loyalty to the organisation. Most importantly they have an obligation to raise concerns about patient safety.
It is in a trusts best interests to listen and work with clinical staff.
This has been a massive waste of resources.
The general public have a right to know how their money is being spent.
What a shame the money spent on lawyers had not been put into the service in the first place. Community services have been severely underresourced for years and this shows the end result. Our children deserve better than this.
Maybe the Chief Executive at Great Ormond Street, or the Chairman of the Trust, or both should be suspended! This would, of course, be ‘pending an investigation’ into why Dr Holt was suspened in the first place, why it was for so long, why it cost (wasted) so much public money, and why it has taken so long to re-instate her after the report. One might hope that it would not take the three years it took to investigate Dr Holt (but that might be wishful thinking!); but, in order to avoid any further waste of public money, I would suggest they should be suspended WITHOUT PAY! That might ‘concentrate their minds’; but, without wishing to prejudge the case(!), it might be an example of making ‘the punishment fit the crime’!
I presented this paper to Mr Norman Lamb on Whistleblowing: Problems and Solutions. What do you think about it?
http://www.doctors4justice.net/2010/03/whistleblowing-in-uk-problems-and.html
In response to Dr Bright’s request for an opinion on her paper, I would say that the general thrust of her argument is excellent. However, the method of ‘presentation’ is too long-winded and legalistic for a medical audience (or readership); the ‘problems’ need to be condensed (with legal cases given as references) and the ’solutions’ need clarified in terms of practicalities.
One must accept that SOME whistleblowers ARE troublemakers. However, the majority of medical whistleblowers are altuistic and trying to prevent harm to patients. In most cases there should be no need for suspensions. There should only be two reasons for suspending a doctor - first, if they are a danger to patients, and second, if they need to be kept out of the place of work (to prevent interfering with witnesses) whilst statements are collected (which should take no longer than two weeks).
Where whistleblowers are vindicated, the appropriate PERSON (Trust Chairman or Chief Executive) should be held to be PERSONALLY responsible (liable to pay compensation out of their own pocket) - with the same rules applying to any regulatory body that is found to have ‘disciplined’ (in any way) a doctor subsequently vindicated.
Needless to say, the Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA) has been found to be virtually ineffective. An alarming issue is that at times, criminal charges are pressed against whistleblowers which are either dropped or end up without any conviction or caution but the Chief Police Officer has discretion to disclose them under ‘OTHER RELEVANT INFORATION’ section of CRB disclosure.
I believe this is another example of ‘Medical and Organized Mobbing’ which can clearly be seen in the following link.
http://www.doctors4justice.net/2010/04/organised-mobbing-british-oppressive.html
GMC itself has recognized the obstacles of raising concerns,
http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/raising_concerns.asp
‘Obstacles to reporting
1.4. You may be reluctant to report concerns for a variety of reasons including, for example because you fear that this may cause problems for colleagues, adversely affect working relationships, have a negative impact on your career or result in a complaint about you. If you are hesitating about reporting a concern for these reasons, you should bear in mind that:
your duty to put patients’ interests first and act to protect them must override personal and professional loyalties
Raising a concern
8. Be clear, honest and objective about the reason for your concern. Acknowledge any personal grievance that may arise from the situation, but focus on the issue of patient safety.’
and advise us to face any complaint which may arise as a consequence of raising concern/s.
My concerns are,
1. Who will dare to speak if he ends up losing his job and good reputation and who will employ a doctor with unfounded allegations showing up in his CRB disclosure.
2. Is there any way whereby the BMA can urge the GMC to update its guidelines on raising concerns with clear support for whistleblowers and also ensure the Government make appropriate changes in the legislation not to label genuine whistleblowers as ‘criminals’.
http://nhsexposedblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/persecution-of-nhs-whistleblowers.html
Persecution of NHS Whistleblowers
These days, new reports have emerged whereby Managers fabricate malicious vexatious, frivolous, if not minor allegations of sexual assault against whistleblowers and report them to police. The only thing required is a police report and the whistleblower is in the dock and the word of one person becomes a wider investigation with millions spent in court to bring the issue to trial. The spectre of “investigation” begins where attention from the real issues [ eg poor care] is diverted by persecuting and discrediting the whistleblower. The question we ask is this, does the Crown Prosecution Service have any concept of organisational reprisals as applied to whistleblower? It is interesting that a vexatious frivolous allegation will be energetically taken up by the police and the CPS thereby wasting millions of tax payers funds, yet the case of Dr Jane Barton who ended the lives of many was dropped at the first stage.
Simultaneously, the Managers may refer him/her to GMC/other regulatory bodies and the poor person appears before the Interim Order Panel (IOP).If s/he is vigilant and has all the records of complaints, there is 50/50 chance that he may face sanctions until the issue is resolved by police which takes almost a year before the case reaches trial. During that period, the health professional has to disclose this GMC investigation in all his or her job application forms.
Meanwhile, s/he/ may well be suspended by the Trust, has lost his/her good name and if a locum, s/he is unable to work with other agencies as the Enhanced CRB disclosure will contain these charges and even the existing agency may not offer him/her a job. So virtually s/he is jobless with huge gap in his/her C.V, which has to be disclosed . He/She will have no other option except to find job secretly and hide him/herself from Managers who are ‘haunting’ and all out to spread more rumors to colleagues and prospective employers.
So after discovering, the NHS staff is subjected to allegations of sexual assault , the employer will try subtly ask him/her to leave or will not extend his/her locum and will be rigorously watched as a ’suspect’. So he/she has lost his/her friends, confidence, trust and avoids attending conferences fearing he/she may have to face members who had subjected him/her to subtle surveillance and organized mobbing.
Now the case reaches court. The prosecution may deny that it has anything to do with whistleblowing and wants reasons for malicious allegations. The NHS staff defends themselves by saying it’s part of organized mobbing and it takes a huge amount of courage and risk to whistleblow and the allegations are premeditated just to discredit complaints.
Though the defendant says, the complainant might have motive to make allegation and the complaints might have gone to Care Quality Commission (CQC) who could have downgraded star rating leading to job losses affecting the complainant herself, the problem is how to convince the Jury which comprise only 12 ordinary individuals on electoral register who might have relavant prejudices/ bias . Also the defendant might not be articulate and impressive and lose the case altogether. So the consequences are that an innocent has a criminal record and ends up on sex offenders register, has ruined his/her career with no livelihood, out of medical profession and virtually unable to find a job overseas as he/she would be erased from the GMC/Other regulatory bodies’ register.
Another scenario!!! the Jury may not reach a verdict and it could be a hung jury. The CPS may ask for re-trial. Are the consequences easily understandable to the public?. How can s/he prove her/his innocence if he/she is not in the UK and how can he defend without earning. How can s/he seek the services of a solicitor to challenge Enhanced CRB disclosure even if the charges are dropped but appear under ‘other relevant information section’ of the Enhances CRB Disclosure. The scenario is such that even if the charges against a whistleblower are dropped, the very fact there was an “investigation” is held against his or her name. The prejudice and stigma will be a lifelong sentence.
These are a few of endless problems such as Appraisal/Revalidation/CPD being faced by whistleblowers. If they raise concern, they are prosecuted, if not still persecuted.
Is there anyone in the town who dare to speak and help NHS Whistleblowers/????????
GMC guidelines on rasing concerns are sketchy as they don’t provide any platform of support when a whistleblower is subjected to complaint and reprisal as the NHS Managers and Trusts will never admit that its retribution or anything to do with whistleblowing. Even the CPS has no charging criteria when the Trusts press criminal charges. So who dares to speak up and ends up losing his good name, livelihood and almost impossible to work again in the NHS. Even regulatory bodies take drastic action when referred by the NHS Managers and whistlbleblowing issue is not taken seriously. How to prove that its part of mobbing and whistleblowing if the evidence is in the form of written complaints and the NHS Managers use malicious allegations through other staff or known patients. If the whistleblower is from ethnic minority, he/she is unable to produce any witness as NHS Managers threaten any potential witness of dire consequences of supporting a whistlebower.
Its not easy to raise concerns. A robust screening process is vital and if a whistleblower provides written evidence of raising concerns before reprisal and subjected to referral to regulatory bodies, he/she should not be investigated and the matter must be closed as soon as possible. It will encourage other NHS staff to speak up and will minimise culture of silence and fear as many NHS staff feel, regulator bodies are part of mob culture.
GMC needs to change its mind set that the NHS Medical Managers’ concerns are always credible. The reality is that most of them are biased against ethnic minority doctors particularly locum doctors. If anyone raises concern, they report him to GMC with spurious complaints and sometimes play dirty and the concerns remain under the carpet. They don’t investigate fearing reality as it will imply they are poor managers and historic arms of the GMC are used to silence and punish whistleblowers. GMC now says its role is not to punish doctors but to protect patients and public but the evidence shows completely different.
Its just a lollypop that PIDA protects whistleblowers as Trade unions will almost never support PIDA claim and a whistleblower can’t afford hefty fee and even if he wins, he will not get back his legal cost and will be subjected to further reprisal. GMC encourages to speak up but many whistleblowers say its professional suicide.
Hung out to dry: scandal of the abandoned NHS whistleblowers….
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/hung-out-to-dry-scandal-of-the-abandoned-nhs-whistleblowers-2306262.html