Ward 87 - Closed in 2005. Isolated from the rest of the hospital 
Visit to Ward 87The important issue to remember here is the fact that I had more investigations done against me [and reports written about me] than Dr Harold Shipman. I think this is an important aspect of whistleblowing to understand. The above report was an internal document written by Teresa Fenech [who lets face it was very good at her job]. These documents and findings were kept away from me and the General Medical Council until about 2005/2006 when they accidentally ended up in a letter addressed to me. I realised then that between 1998-2006, the Trust had
1. Made a number of false accusations against me to the Department of Health and the GMC. They had repeatedly attempted to drag me down the GMC procedures but each attempt so far has failed miserably.
2. Written various reports about me mostly done by Drs Colin Campbell and Keith Prowse. They both ensured lots of spectres were raised about me in all quarters thereby diverting the responsibility from them to the scrutiny of me. The recruitment of doctors where therefore not affected. Their main aim was to preserve this.
3. Had told Professor Griffiths to raise a spectre over my apparent stress or mental illness. Of course, life would have been easier for them had I developed an illness convenient to their cause but I didn't. David Fillingham and Professor Griffiths were on first named terms.
4. The investigation instigated by the GMC via Professor Griffiths resulted in " No concerns verified". Essentially, Professor Griffith's finding was diametrically opposite to the internal Trust documents. David Fillingham and Professor Griffiths had ensured the GMC was not aware that I was right in any way. By doing this, all the senior doctors at North Staffordshire NHS Trust were protected.
5. In summary, the Trust had undermined my ability, character assassinated me, implied that I was somehow less competent than anyone else and instigated a series of events that would finally culminate in litigation against the GMC and a subsequent win.
6. It is now 2008, 10 years after the event. The Trust, the GMC and the Department of Health still hold the false accusations made against me. These accusations have no evidential basis and neither were any of them upheld. The Trust though believes that the more rubbish they spew against my name, the better it looks for them.
7. For challenging this issue, Professor Griffiths in 2005/2006 threatened to issue an alert letter against my name. I told him to put up or shut up. He decided on shutting up. Professor Griffiths and Professor Temple had offices right next to each other at the University of Birmingham and they were both involved with business of junior doctor recruitment.
It was startlingly clear that the Trust had secretly attempted what we call " damage control". They had attempted to solve the issue internally while also sitting on the fence and ensuring their whistleblower would always be fighting against a tirade of accusations. Character assassination, the spread of rumours is a convenient manner for the Trust to ensure that no authority takes these issues seriously. It is also convenient to ensure that the media does not take these issues seriously.
While the above documentation was being written, the senior doctors responsible for me were busily writing all sorts of long reports about me. One was written by Colin Campbell, then another by West Midlands Deanery and more were written by University of London. In each report they struggled to find something wrong with my work but felt they would write something suitably cutting eg that I was young, that I was apparently not as good as my colleagues etc. Of course, as evidence and references will later be shown, I was infact as good as my colleagues, often covered for them and at the time fairly competent at my job. If I wasn't then I would never have recognised the serious clinical risk that was posed to patients.
The reports for me was a bit like being stripped naked and analysed from top to toe. The senior doctors responsible for Ward 87 eg Dr Monica Spitieri got away lightly because her conduct was never analysed to any extent. No one saw any reports written about Monica Spitieri. Infact, no one was ready to publicly criticise someone who was so inept at her job. Yet, it was Dr Spitieri who had overlooked the serious concerns above. It was Dr Spitieri who did not raise concerns about the substandard lack of care. It was Monica Spitieri who did not report the death of EP to the Coroner. Essentially, all the problems on the ward were her responsibility. Of course, the conduct of the Trust in scrutinising, undermining and analysing me in this way is something I have never forgiven. Infact, defending yourself against these speculative, non evidential allegations is a huge task for any young doctor.
I am also unlikely to allow them to forget their actions against a whistleblower who raised concerns about problems they already knew about. We all move on in life as I have but we never forget. The issue about this whistleblowing story is that it is very similar to many in the NHS. The difference is of course is whistleblowers are often too crippled with fear to speak out about it in any way. I though believe that every lesson is learned by understanding certain situations. I certainly don't believe the NHS is ready for transparency or whistleblowing. Their reaction to this website for instance is irritation.
At no time did the Trust ever disclose the above documents to me and neither did they ever apologise for their behaviour. As the reader can see, even in 1999, the serious problems on the ward continued. These problems did not improve even after the 2001 Report by Dr John Creamer. The question we ask ourselves of course is this - this was an acute ward, people were ill and how many people's lives were compromised because of these serious problems? The answer here is that no one knows. The reason for this of course is that they all spent masses of their time writing long reports, speculating over my character, the type of person I was, my ability and ignored the real issues that were at stake. They did attempt a " patching up or a correction" of matters but the ward should have been shut down immediately. It wasn't.
The impression that is created is this - a renegade whistleblower arrived in 1998 and that was when the problems started. The reality of course is that the problems on that ward were serious for about 10 years [or more] before me when patients died and nothing was done. That is of course the issue here. Again wider data was never assessed or analysed. It would be impossible for acutely ill patients to survive the negligence as described above. They didn't survive. A few months before I came to work on Ward 87, I attended an arrest in the middle of the night. A young man had a cardiac arrest. I later found out was that no one had checked his INR for a week. These episodes were always the case. It was common, everyone knew it was common and the implication to the media was that this was " just another elderly care ward" but it wasn't an elderly care ward, it was a acute ward filled with patients of all ages. The maximum number of cardiac arrests were always on that ward. Everyone knew that. Anecdotal evidence is interesting because it also shows the true extent of the failures on this ward. What is interesting is that patients or their relatives were never interviewed as part of the 1999 or 2001 investigations. People died, the problems were overlooked and that was the culture much like it is in the NHS in general. The way the Trust gets around this issue is that it tells the world that " things have improved". When that is said, it creates a false sense of security that all is well. Of course, the reality is far from that simple.
As you can observe these lazy, incompetent, nurses were never held accountable by the NMC. Infact, when a complaint was raised, North Staffordshire NHS Trust told the NMC that they could not find or locate the identity or existence of Sister Paula Wright. As everyone can see, the document above lists her name right on the top of the memo. The ward had been besieged with patient complaints and Teresa hints at this. It was also plagued with litigation that no doubt the Trust settled.
The doctors were never held accountable either. Dr Green walked off to the Nuffield Hospital and quite happily exists there, Dr Spitieri walked off to Keele University and is current a professor.
We compare this to Dr Southall - where all inquiries have cleared his work in the last 20 years. He was stripped of his Professor Title at Keele. We then compare the death rates that Dr Spitieri and Dr Green were responsible for. The death toll for these two doctors is far far higher than anything Dr Southall was responsible for. Dr Spitieri or Dr Green have never been subjected to the sort of scrutiny or public vilification bestowed upon Dr Southall. Yet, it is these two doctors who should have been struck off the medical register in the public interest. It was not in the public's interest to keep silent about the level of neglect on Ward 87. While we watch the spectacle at the GMC today we should spare a thought for the patients who died on Ward 87.
For those patients who died on Ward 87 there has never been any accountability. The GMC has not acted in the public interest.
1. Made a number of false accusations against me to the Department of Health and the GMC. They had repeatedly attempted to drag me down the GMC procedures but each attempt so far has failed miserably.
2. Written various reports about me mostly done by Drs Colin Campbell and Keith Prowse. They both ensured lots of spectres were raised about me in all quarters thereby diverting the responsibility from them to the scrutiny of me. The recruitment of doctors where therefore not affected. Their main aim was to preserve this.
3. Had told Professor Griffiths to raise a spectre over my apparent stress or mental illness. Of course, life would have been easier for them had I developed an illness convenient to their cause but I didn't. David Fillingham and Professor Griffiths were on first named terms.
4. The investigation instigated by the GMC via Professor Griffiths resulted in " No concerns verified". Essentially, Professor Griffith's finding was diametrically opposite to the internal Trust documents. David Fillingham and Professor Griffiths had ensured the GMC was not aware that I was right in any way. By doing this, all the senior doctors at North Staffordshire NHS Trust were protected.
5. In summary, the Trust had undermined my ability, character assassinated me, implied that I was somehow less competent than anyone else and instigated a series of events that would finally culminate in litigation against the GMC and a subsequent win.
6. It is now 2008, 10 years after the event. The Trust, the GMC and the Department of Health still hold the false accusations made against me. These accusations have no evidential basis and neither were any of them upheld. The Trust though believes that the more rubbish they spew against my name, the better it looks for them.
7. For challenging this issue, Professor Griffiths in 2005/2006 threatened to issue an alert letter against my name. I told him to put up or shut up. He decided on shutting up. Professor Griffiths and Professor Temple had offices right next to each other at the University of Birmingham and they were both involved with business of junior doctor recruitment.
It was startlingly clear that the Trust had secretly attempted what we call " damage control". They had attempted to solve the issue internally while also sitting on the fence and ensuring their whistleblower would always be fighting against a tirade of accusations. Character assassination, the spread of rumours is a convenient manner for the Trust to ensure that no authority takes these issues seriously. It is also convenient to ensure that the media does not take these issues seriously.
While the above documentation was being written, the senior doctors responsible for me were busily writing all sorts of long reports about me. One was written by Colin Campbell, then another by West Midlands Deanery and more were written by University of London. In each report they struggled to find something wrong with my work but felt they would write something suitably cutting eg that I was young, that I was apparently not as good as my colleagues etc. Of course, as evidence and references will later be shown, I was infact as good as my colleagues, often covered for them and at the time fairly competent at my job. If I wasn't then I would never have recognised the serious clinical risk that was posed to patients.
The reports for me was a bit like being stripped naked and analysed from top to toe. The senior doctors responsible for Ward 87 eg Dr Monica Spitieri got away lightly because her conduct was never analysed to any extent. No one saw any reports written about Monica Spitieri. Infact, no one was ready to publicly criticise someone who was so inept at her job. Yet, it was Dr Spitieri who had overlooked the serious concerns above. It was Dr Spitieri who did not raise concerns about the substandard lack of care. It was Monica Spitieri who did not report the death of EP to the Coroner. Essentially, all the problems on the ward were her responsibility. Of course, the conduct of the Trust in scrutinising, undermining and analysing me in this way is something I have never forgiven. Infact, defending yourself against these speculative, non evidential allegations is a huge task for any young doctor.
I am also unlikely to allow them to forget their actions against a whistleblower who raised concerns about problems they already knew about. We all move on in life as I have but we never forget. The issue about this whistleblowing story is that it is very similar to many in the NHS. The difference is of course is whistleblowers are often too crippled with fear to speak out about it in any way. I though believe that every lesson is learned by understanding certain situations. I certainly don't believe the NHS is ready for transparency or whistleblowing. Their reaction to this website for instance is irritation.
At no time did the Trust ever disclose the above documents to me and neither did they ever apologise for their behaviour. As the reader can see, even in 1999, the serious problems on the ward continued. These problems did not improve even after the 2001 Report by Dr John Creamer. The question we ask ourselves of course is this - this was an acute ward, people were ill and how many people's lives were compromised because of these serious problems? The answer here is that no one knows. The reason for this of course is that they all spent masses of their time writing long reports, speculating over my character, the type of person I was, my ability and ignored the real issues that were at stake. They did attempt a " patching up or a correction" of matters but the ward should have been shut down immediately. It wasn't.
The impression that is created is this - a renegade whistleblower arrived in 1998 and that was when the problems started. The reality of course is that the problems on that ward were serious for about 10 years [or more] before me when patients died and nothing was done. That is of course the issue here. Again wider data was never assessed or analysed. It would be impossible for acutely ill patients to survive the negligence as described above. They didn't survive. A few months before I came to work on Ward 87, I attended an arrest in the middle of the night. A young man had a cardiac arrest. I later found out was that no one had checked his INR for a week. These episodes were always the case. It was common, everyone knew it was common and the implication to the media was that this was " just another elderly care ward" but it wasn't an elderly care ward, it was a acute ward filled with patients of all ages. The maximum number of cardiac arrests were always on that ward. Everyone knew that. Anecdotal evidence is interesting because it also shows the true extent of the failures on this ward. What is interesting is that patients or their relatives were never interviewed as part of the 1999 or 2001 investigations. People died, the problems were overlooked and that was the culture much like it is in the NHS in general. The way the Trust gets around this issue is that it tells the world that " things have improved". When that is said, it creates a false sense of security that all is well. Of course, the reality is far from that simple.
As you can observe these lazy, incompetent, nurses were never held accountable by the NMC. Infact, when a complaint was raised, North Staffordshire NHS Trust told the NMC that they could not find or locate the identity or existence of Sister Paula Wright. As everyone can see, the document above lists her name right on the top of the memo. The ward had been besieged with patient complaints and Teresa hints at this. It was also plagued with litigation that no doubt the Trust settled.
The doctors were never held accountable either. Dr Green walked off to the Nuffield Hospital and quite happily exists there, Dr Spitieri walked off to Keele University and is current a professor.
We compare this to Dr Southall - where all inquiries have cleared his work in the last 20 years. He was stripped of his Professor Title at Keele. We then compare the death rates that Dr Spitieri and Dr Green were responsible for. The death toll for these two doctors is far far higher than anything Dr Southall was responsible for. Dr Spitieri or Dr Green have never been subjected to the sort of scrutiny or public vilification bestowed upon Dr Southall. Yet, it is these two doctors who should have been struck off the medical register in the public interest. It was not in the public's interest to keep silent about the level of neglect on Ward 87. While we watch the spectacle at the GMC today we should spare a thought for the patients who died on Ward 87.
For those patients who died on Ward 87 there has never been any accountability. The GMC has not acted in the public interest.
0 comments:
Post a Comment