NHS whistleblowers charter for consultation

NHS whistleblowers will be given greater protection under changes being considered in the aftermath of the nursing standards scandal at Mid Staffordshire hospitals.
NHS whistleblowers charter for consultationAndrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, said a “culture of fear” had pervaded Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, where between 400 and 1,200 patients died due to poor nursing care between 2005 and 2009, which enabled problems to continue “unchallenged and undetected for so long”.

As a result of the Mid Staffordshire nursing scandal and other problems, Mr Lansley has announced a consultation is to take place over changes to the NHS Constitution, which sets out what staff, patients and the public can expect from the service.

NHS whistleblowers ‘need greater legal protection’ says BMJ

Mr Lansley aims to bring about a cultural shift in the NHS to make it easier for employees to highlight failings.

Specifically, he wants to introduce “an NHS pledge that employers will support all staff in raising such concerns” and “create an expectation that NHS staff will raise concerns about safety, malpractice and wrong doing … as early as possible”.

Reports have repeatedly highlighted how serious problems at hospitals have been allowed to continue because staff have been too afraid to speak up.

An independent report commissioned by the Government last year concluded that patients were “robbed of their dignity” at Stafford Hospital and Cannock Chase Hospital, with some left in soiled bedclothes, while families had to clean lavatories and public areas themselves. Staff were “uncaring” and managers “in denial” about the problems.

The NHS consultation closes on January 11.

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/NHSWhistleblowers-charter-for-NHS

One Comment so far:

  1. 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

Posted by: Health Direct on

Tags: , , , , ,