NHS whistleblowers to get more support

Released 09/06/2010

Health Secretary outlines plans to tackle culture of secrecy, fear and bullying

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley has called for better safeguards against NHS whistleblowers in the aftermath of the failings in patient care at Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust

In announcing a full public inquiry into the failings, Lansley called for robust new safeguards for whistleblowers

Lansley announced immediate plans to tackle the culture of secrecy, fear and bullying among staff at the hospital identified by previous inquiries, setting out new measures to strengthen protection for NHS staff who whistle blow.

The measures will both encourage staff to raise concerns and ensure that they are listened to when they do and include:
• reinforcing rights and responsibilities for staff and employers in the NHS Constitution;
• issuing new guidance to the NHS stating that contracts of employment should cover whistle blowing;
• and supporting staff that raise concerns.

He said: "The NHS must prioritise the people it serves and listen to the doctors and nurses who work in it. I have today set out how I intend to strengthen protection for NHS whistleblowers. Last week we began to publish more transparent data about the NHS so people can hold their local services to account. And yesterday I set out one of the ways we will focus the NHS on improving patient outcomes by reducing hospital readmissions.

"But this alone is not enough. We need a culture change in the NHS that puts patients first - an NHS that listens to patients and responds to their concerns and needs. If patients at Stafford had been listened to and prioritised over processes and targets these terrible failings would have been challenged sooner."

The Inquiry, to be chaired by Robert Francis QC, will seek to expose how events at the Trust went undetected and unchallenged for so long by the wider regulatory and supervisory bodies responsible for monitoring the performance of the Trust.

Dr Hamish Meldrum, chairman of Council at the BMA, said: "It often takes a huge amount of courage to raise concerns about patient care. NHS staff who speak out on behalf of their patients should be protected as much as possible, and it is outrageous that they are often either ignored or threatened with a range of sanctions. We welcome this commitment to greater protections for those who raise concerns, and look forward to seeing detailed proposals."

See more news stories like this

Get a Free trial subscription to Practice Business

Comments

2010-06-12 19:20:13

The following link raise questions on the efficacy of The Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA). http://www.doctors4justice.net/2010/03/whistleblowing-in-uk-problems-and.html Another alarming issue is that at times, criminal charges are pressed by the employers 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 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 queries 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 GMC can be urged to update its guidelines on raising concerns with clear support for whistleblowers and also to ensure the Government make appropriate changes in the legislation and not to label genuine whistleblowers as 'criminals'. 3. I suggest, unfounded allegations should not be a part of enhanced CRB disclosure if the whistleblower is quitted or charges dropped.

2011-07-07 18:44:30

http://www.doctors4justice.net/2011/07/rt-hon-andrew-mitchell-mp-gets.html Rt Hon Andrew Mitchell MP gets Parliamentary Health Select Committee inquiry on whistleblowers 1 Comments - 05 Jul 2011 We are very pleased that hard working Rt Hon Andrew Mitchell MP has been successful in obtaining agreement from Rt Hon Stephen Dorrell for an inquiry into NHS whistleblowers. Dr Rita Pal, veteran whistleblower (ward 87, North Staffordshire) alerted Rt Hon Andrew Mitchell of problems associated with doing the right thing for the patients in a dysfu... More Link Mr Nunn Orthopaedic Surgeon and David Cameron PM do their best by Dr Helen Bright 0 Comments - 24 Jun 2011Click on the photograph to watch the videoMr Nunn, Orthopaedic Surgeon who would know only to well what happens when infection spreads through the bones and kills objected to filming crew not complying with hospital hygiene rules. It certainly is best to be safe. David Cameron, PM did the best he could in the situation and asked filming crew to c... More Link Previous Pause Next This Blog Linked From Here The Web This Blog Linked From Here .The Web . Loading... Tuesday, 5 July 2011 Rt Hon Andrew Mitchell MP gets Parliamentary Health Select Committee inquiry on whistleblowers Posted by Doctors4Justice at 11:35 We are very pleased that hard working Rt Hon Andrew Mitchell MP has been successful in obtaining agreement from Rt Hon Stephen Dorrell for an inquiry into NHS whistleblowers. Dr Rita Pal, veteran whistleblower (ward 87, North Staffordshire) alerted Rt Hon Andrew Mitchell of problems associated with doing the right thing for the patients in a dysfunctional system of medical regulation. Dr Rita Pal, North Staffordshire whistleblower (care of the elderly in Ward 87) with help of Rt Hon Andre Mitchell MP managed to get a committeemen from Rt Hon Stephen Dorrell: "The committee will look into whistleblowers. It is every professional's business to ensure that clinical care where they work is of a certain standard. Like Sir Ian Kennedy said after the Bristol babies inquiry: 'It wasn't that nobody knew, it was that everybody knew.' Every doctor and nurse has an obligation to act if they know there is a problem and those who do nothing should be questioned by their regulator; it would soon stop this kind of thing." We agree. However, we do know that when we inform medical regulator, regulator can turn nasty towards whistleblower too, so some measures would have to be introduced to deal with regulators' wrongdoing. The first such measure would be for regulators to agree to consent order for whistleblower's rehabilitation where regulator wrongly persecuted whistleblower and introduced sanctions against their professional practice. This would allow High Court to quash GMC findings, for example. Another measure would be financial fines for regulator who treats whistleblowers badly. I learned, for example, from training unwilling men to do housework that it was easier to achieve my goal by asking them to contribute towards cleaners' salary that to give them lectures on feminism or to manipulate them by cooking nice meals for them (I am a good cook). Doctors4Justice has campaigned for a couple of years now for improvements in regulation of medical profession. We have produced several papers on whistleblowing. Here is one: http://www.doctors4justice.net/2010/03/whistleblowing-in-uk-problems-and.html Read Sir Ian Kennedy's Witness Statement to Staffordshire Public Inquiry HERE.

Mike

2011-05-29 07:41:25

http://www.palvgmc.blogspot.com

Jim

2011-05-31 16:36:54

Its so disgusting that the GMC is so racist against minority doctors. The most encouraging factor is that people have trust in the court. The following quote is alarming for the GMC http://www.sundaymercury.net/news/tm_objectid=16203725&method=full&siteid=50002-name_page.html Judge Charles Harris raged: “It is like a totalitarian regime: anybody who criticises it is said to be mentally ill – what used to happen in Russia.”

Sam

2011-06-04 10:56:01

GMC guidelines are clear on raising concerns but doctors are sceptical as time and again they face retribution and are left all alone at the mercy of the NHS Managers who then refer them to police, GMC and subjected them to ostracism, horrifying investigating process, dismissal etc. I suggest the GMC guidelines lack clarity on real support after raising concerns as the PIDA don’t support adequatley because of a number of loop holes and health professionals can’t affort hefty legal costs as the Trade Unions hardly support a PIDA claim. Doctors opt to silence fearing further reprisals by the NHS Managers. GMC screening process should be robust and if a whistleblower provides evidence of raising concerns prior to complaints, he/she should not be referred to the FTP as it will send a wrong message to other doctors and will discourage them to speak up for their patients.

2011-06-06 08:55:13

Because of a culture of fear and retribution in the NHS,many doctors don't speak up. However a minority do raise concerns trusting the system and stop when they face reality and see the double standard. The GMC guidelines are clear encouraging doctors to speak up but when they do speak up, NHS Managers persecute them and refer them to GMC. There is no support for doctors when they are suspended as the GMC does not involve in employment issues, knowing the cause of suspension is because of following the GMC guidelines. The NHS Managers fabricate spurious complaints and the GMC take it as Stream 1 (more serious) especially if a doctor is from ethnic minority. I suggest, GMC should be proportionate in its response and if a whistleblower produces evidence of raising concerns before being subjected to spurious complaints,GMC should close the matter at the initial stage as referral to FTP panel will discourage other doctors from speaking up and GMC wants doctors to highlight malpractice or wrongdoing. Only with proportionate response by the GMC, doctors will have confidence to speak up without fear of reprisals.

2011-06-07 07:34:14

The following case illustrates how the Caucasian doctors are treated more favourably by the GMC. Dr.Thomas, a Gynaecologist who was alleged to have given his patient, Ms Giles 'leg bucking orgasm' and received lewd messages on his phone was taken lightly after his patient made a complaint against him and the GMC did not take any action despite Judge's remarks “He has no doubt learnt there are no doubt limits to the compassion and concern in dealing with his patients.” and despite its own guidelines, that the presumption for sex assault allegation is to refer to the Fitness to Practise (FTP) Panel hearing and substantial disputes should not be resolved by the case examiners.(The Telegraph By Nick Britten and Matthew Moore 6:16PM GMT 18 Dec 2009) If it were a black or an ethnic minority doctor, he could have been immediately suspended and dragged all the way to the FTP Panel hearing and most likely erased.

Anon

2011-06-09 12:45:34

Ian Kennedy, the last Chairman of Healthcare Commisson has acknowledged the widespread problem of deterrance in raising concerns saying “My experience of the Department of Health is they have a tendency to shoot the messenger rather than embrace changes that need to be made. Their first priority is to ‘handle’ the situation rather than consider and implement change. Those were the realities we had to work with,” (BMJ 2011; 342:d2900 doi: 10.1136/bmj.d2900 (Published 6 May 2011).

2011-06-19 15:19:38

Some Pressure groups are campaigning to abolish biased GMC and I am not sure if the DH/NHS who use regulatory bodies to silence and persecute genuine doctors will ever let it happen. GMC shows bias on almost every stage starting from investigation leading up to FtP decisions. For Caucasians in particular White British doctors, preferential treatment is given and if there is no strong written evidence, complaint will be perceived as vexatious especially if it is from a patient or member of the public. However NHS Medical Managers' concerns are taken as stream 1 (more serious) if the doctor is from ethnic minority and GMC take long time to conclude and for White British doctors, the case is either closed swiftly or brought to FtP panel in a few months with favourable outcome. A number of reports have shown that NHS Managers make false allegations and complaints against White British doctors come to light only if the case of of Shipman or Kerr/Haslam level http://www.nhsreformgroup.com/Kerr/Haslam-Inquiry/29.htm as the NHS management support them. By contrast, even a minor concern abut ethnic minority doctors is taken seriously and reported to GMC and the NHS management use other staff as witnesses and the ethnic minority doctors face prosecution by the GMC which is part of the mob culture. In nutshell, many experts in whistleblowing say, its wise to keep quiet and keep your head down.

2011-06-23 08:36:48

GMC has two different set of criteria to investigate concerns and some people are justified to say that its not less than a double standard. The following article written by a British Cardiologist Dr.Peter Wilmshurst provides evidence of racial bias despite GMC's claim that its not due to ethnicity but the place of work which brings more International Medical Graduates to Fitness to Practise (FtP). A British Professor who claimed false qualification was given only PRIVATE WARNING . Seven Black and Ethinic minority doctors claiming false qualifications and/or making false job applications were treated harshly; three were erased, one suspended and another reprimanded. Is it fairness in this most civilized nation. You can find full article in the following link http://palvgmc.blogspot.com/ under A Personal View. Dr Peter Wilmshurst '....Some may ask why the Professional Conduct Committee publicly suspended or erased from the Medical Register a number of doctors, all of whom had African or Asian names, for claiming qualifications that they had not been awarded, but the GMC decided that in the case of a white British professor at a major academic institution only a private warning not to do it again was required.....' Not to mention that Dr Pal, an ethnic minority doctor who raised concerns on patients' safety was labelled as mentally ill and the judge branded GMC as a 'STALANISTIC REGIME'. Its unfortunate that the GMC has assassinated the career of a brilliant doctor and the NHS has lost an eminent professional merely because of racial bias. GMC has been and will be used to silence and prosecute whistleblowers and drastic action will be taken against ethnic minority doctors. There is still hope if the GMC and other regulatory bodies change their attitudes and stop taking dictations from NHS Managers and stick to their primary duty of patients' care and not to punish genuine whistleblower.

2011-06-25 19:47:27

The best way for the GMC to build up its rapidly damaging reputation is to start being honest and fair by investigating NHS Medical Managers under Stream 1 (more serious) allegations and bring them before the Fitness to Panel (FtP) hearing when they refer genuine whistleblowers to GMC with spurious complaints. If the whistleblower provides evidence of raising concerns before being referred to GMC, the case must be closed at the investigation stage (Registrar stage). This will send a clear message to all doctors to raise concerns and discourage NHS Managers' gang culture. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!GMC must NOW stop taking anymore dictations from the NHS/Department of Health although we still believe its an uphill task for the GMC.

Rob

2011-12-26 12:21:13

http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/03/gmc-encourage-whistleblowing-anyone-believe-it "The GMC to encourage whistleblowing" - anyone believe it? Mon, 2011-08-22 14:47 The House of Commons Health Select Committee believes that the GMC should send a clear signal to doctors that they must report concerns about a fellow doctor.[1] My experiences suggest that the GMC itself has been involved in concealing misconduct. As chair of the medical committee of a government recognised national organisation, I reported a group of doctors, because the committee had concerns about their research.[2] It involved injecting a radioactive isotope into patients suffering from a neurological illness. Before investigating the allegations, the GMC investigated me for the counter- charge of disparaging the doctors. The GMC investigated the allegations against the doctors only after clearing me, but allowed the two most senior doctors to voluntarily remove their names from the Medical Register, which meant that the charges that they had covered up misconduct could not be investigated. The GMC then confirmed that ethics committee and ARSAC approvals had not been obtained. No consent forms were available. It was stated that patients were only asked to give verbal consent. The GMC decided that it was unable to adjudicate on allegations of data fabrication because the authors failed to produce the data. Many might consider failure to produce data at the request of the GMC prima facia evidence of falsification. The GMC held no public hearing and issued no public statement. The senior doctors involved, including a medical professor and a consultant in nuclear medicine, who told the GMC that they did not understand the requirements for ethics approval and for administration of radioactive isotopes, were given private warnings and advice. In 2002, Dr Clive Handler was suspended from the Medical Register after I reported him to the GMC for financial misconduct.[2,3] Dr Handler had left Northwick Park Hospital in 1998 after an inquiry there revealed the misconduct. The GMC was informed that a severance agreement between the hospital and Dr Handler included an agreement not to inform the police or the GMC. The hospital trust board, including the Medical Director, Professor Peter Richards approved the agreement. At the time Professor Richards was a GMC member. When Dr Handler appeared before the Professional Conduct Committee, Professor Richards was the Committee's chairman and I was amazed to witnessed the bizarre conduct of a dysfunctional organisation. Professor Richards had to stand-down from hearing the case because of his involvement in the cover-up. Despite that, Professor Richards returned to chairing subsequent PCC hearings. The messages from these cases are clear. Ordinary doctors who report misconduct may be victimised by the GMC and the GMC tolerates its own members concealing crime. The Health Select Committee should be asking "quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" References 1. Jacques H. Doctors should be held to account for behaviour of colleagues, say MPs. BMJ 2011;343:d4794. 2. Wilmshurst P. Dishonesty in medical research. Medico-Legal Journal 2007;75:3-12. 3. Dyer C. GMC hearing reveals how doctor won deal to have earlier inquiry documents destroyed. BMJ 325 : 1189 doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7374.1189/a Competing interests: I have reported concerns about conduct of other doctors. Peter T Wilmshurst, Consultant Cardiologist Royal Shrewsbury Hospital

Rob

2011-12-26 12:21:19

Share this page!

Comment on this story

Your Name:
Your Email:
Comment:
Security Image (case sensitive)