Ward 87: iwantgreatcare.org. I'M A DOCTOR, GET ME OUT OF THERE

Wednesday, 16 July 2008

iwantgreatcare.org. I'M A DOCTOR, GET ME OUT OF THERE

Do Not Resuscitate Order
The Simple Solution to a Failing Website

I am writing this as a warning for all doctors and members of the public whose details are posted to iwantgreatcare.org. We have spent quite sometime investigating the website. There are significant dangers for doctors and the public. I am more than aware that many doctors are extremely busy slaving for our Lord God the NHS. Each doctor though has to ask Neil Bacon to cease processing their data immediately. The background to this is set out on NHS Behind the Headlines. It has been established that iwantgreatcare.org has associations with the General Medical Council and Department of Health. Moreover, technically there are connections as well.

Details of the Information Commissioner is here. I suggest the website is reported for processing data without any one's permission. It is vital that every doctor asks this website not to process their data now and the future.This is the cheapest and most effective solution. If it reaches the stage of libel law, it gets seriously messy, prolongs matters etc.

Alternatively, iwantgreatcare.org would have obtained their database from a source. That company/source can be approached and a request made to cease processing data under Section 11 of the Data Protection Act 1998.

I know full well that many will not believe me until Dr Crippen agrees with this. Thats because anonymous doctors are believed before whistleblowers :). Nevertheless, I felt obliged to write this, having read the small print and sat here in shock. Internally, the GMC is attempting to meet their post Shipman Targets. I do not have access to a doctors only web site as everyone knows therefore I am simply reliant on my predictions and public blogs for information as to the current status. One thing is for sure, it is important not to rely on the British Medical Association or any authority to assist, because they simply won't. Neil Bacon's contacts go quite high and I advised him of his abuse of doctors' data in the past. This means his strength is due to the Department of Health and General Medical Council's covert support.

Now, I would like everyone to read iwantgreatcare.org's privacy policy. I understand that no one has time to read small print so I have read it for you. Here is the Privacy Policy of Neil Bacon's website.

"We use the personal data about doctors (but in a form which does not identify individual doctors) to provide Primary Care Trusts and other healthcare organisations with aggregated information about doctors in a specified location or locations. We may pass data about doctors (but in a form which does not identify individual doctors) to primary care trusts, other healthcare organisations and to government or government agencies."

This includes passing data to General Medical Council. Make no mistake regarding this. Compare this to their admission of independence. The General Medical Council does not require a formal complaint to commence an investigation. It can simply be a "information received". In this era of early disclosure, it could be dangerous to any junior doctors. I cannot do more than raise this issue online. I trust a few people will give me the credit of knowing my stuff!

This apparent dishonesty makes me very uncomfortable about this organisation.

"iWantGreatCare is an independent organisation. Total independence from the NHS, BMA, GMC and all other regulatory and supervisory organisations in healthcare allows you and other users of iWantGreatCare to be certain there is no bias, modification or censorship of iWantGreatCare ratings and reviews. The opinions and ratings of patients and their carers and relatives are the most important component of iWantGreatCare" About section of iwantgreatcare.org"

In conclusion, it is vital that doctors especially remove themselves from this website now. It takes one post to instigate a GMC proceeding. Even if the post is removed, the post can be sent to the GMC and a investigation commenced. Make no mistake about this. This website is nothing more than patient bait to collect demographics on the patient population. This is an extremely dangerous escapade for patients who do not read the small print.

Patients and relatives should not be tempted to post on the website iwantgreatcare.org. I don't say this lightly. I have considered this project with the indepth knowledge I have of the systems. It is a danger at this present time.

"Dr Bacon said: “I have had discussions with the Department of Health and NHS Choices and they see this as complementary to what they are doing. It is possible that the views collected on the site will be integrated with NHS Choices in the future" [E- Insider]

Please steer clear of this website iwantgreatcare.org until further notice.

0 comments:

Post a Comment

About The Author

There is a lot of things most people can say about me but in reality I am NHS Whistleblower. In 1998, I followed the guidance set out in Good Medical Practice[GMC] and raised concerns about substandard care on Ward 87 North Staffordshire NHS Trust. I also raised concerns about the large number of Midlands Hospitals covered by West Midlands NHS Executive in 1999. Following the recordings of the HSMR scores, only Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust spiked their figures. This was due to the inordinately high death rates. These deaths could have been prevented had the government acted in 1999. There are many other hospitals with equally high death rates but 1000s have not raised the HSMR scores. The Mid Staffordshire Inquiry shows poor standards that are similar to many hospitals in the Midlands [particularly Distinct General Hospitals]. They were also the identical to the concerns raised by me in 1999, many years before.

In 2010 the CQC finally admitted that North Staffordshire had "significantly high mortality" in the years I raised concerns.

This blog follows my adventures as a whistleblower. It was written between 2008-2010. It seeks to present what the media have never done. I also aim to discuss a number of medical issues important in the NHS today. A short account of my experiences is presented here.

Essentially, I raised concerns in 1998, locally then to all the authorities, the GMC, Department of Health and Trust attempted to say there was no substance to my concerns. In 2005, I discovered that all authorities had concealed the 1998 and 2001 internal reports that verified my concerns. This is a brief step by step summary of the events related to Ward 87.

Between 2000-2002, the General Medical Council conducted a "discreet inquiry" into my Fitness to Practice. I was never told of this investigation until I discovered quite by accident following a subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998. The GMC were subjected to litigation by me due to the illegal investigation and repeated leaks of prejudicial information to potential employers. They were beaten in court following the first litigation of its kind. The GMC settled the case in favour of me. During litigation, the GMC subjected me quite severe harassment by revolving door vexatious complaints - 2 in total. I was cleared of all of them. I was never subjected to any Fitness to Practise hearings. All complaints were thrown out at case examiner's stage despite the GMC's malevolent intentions.

The GMC subsequently erased me from the Register for non payment of subscription fees. It should be emphasized that I was never sanctioned or struck off has speculated by some bloggers. In total, I have been subjected to 4 years of complaints that had no relation to my clinical work. This has had catastrophic consequences to my work as a doctor and eventually caused the assassination of my references in 2007.

This led to the test case R v General Medical Council Ex Parte Pal with the intention of defining the definition of potential misconduct and preventing vexatious complaints against doctors. The complaints were made by Penny Mellor and her associate Fiona Wollard [ niece of Professor Sir Charles George].

While permission was granted by a judge with Employment Law experience, the final hearing was lost courtesy of Justice Sir Andrew Collins who made various statements. One was that the GMC was free to rule differently on two separate cases with exactly the same facts and the other was to widen the analysis of misconduct to include conduct outside the profession. Justice Sir Andrew Collins has sat on numerous cases related to the GMC. He has often failed to declare that his brother Dr Mark Collins was once prosecuted by the GMC for alliances in Clapham Common. Details of this can be read here.

The two diametrically opposite analysis of misconduct was also discovered following the GMC's submission to R v General Medical Council Ex Parte Remedy UK. Essentially, one analysis appears to be used for some foreign doctors and a different more lenient definition is used for establishment doctors such as Liam Donaldson. The GMC were essentially caught red handed touting two different analysis of misconduct in two cases. This discrepancy is currently being investigated by both the CHRE and the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

The defenses to all these cases have taken up 52 files. By comparison, the GMC refused to investigate the doctors on Ward 87 despite the fact that their conduct was directly related to clinical work. They continue to work in various positions in the UK. No one was held accountable despite 2 reports verifying my concerns. Moreover, the Health Commission refused to conduct a broader data study in relation to the Ward 87. The GMC and Ombudsman refused to inform the patients on the Ward of the 1998 and 2001 Reports. The Sentinel newspapers refused to feature a legitimate advert.

In 2009, after discussion with Dr Phil Hammond, he wrote an excellent piece in Private Eye. While the media have provided little or no support for these issues, I am indebted to my fellow bloggers - Dr Rant, The Jobbing Doctor, Dr John Crippen and Witchdoctor. This blog exists to protect other doctors who I hope will never tread the path of whistleblowing. It is a path paved with injustice. It also serves to show the public that they cannot legitimately expect doctors to raise concerns in such a dangerous terrain. This indeed places patient safety in great jeopardy.

This blog ended in February 2010 as it was unlikely that I would ever return to medicine. I have also decided to end this particular saga here. I hope this blog will educate, entertain and remind the public that whistleblowing is a dangerous escapade and no junior doctor has treaded the same path as I have for a reason. The terrain is unsafe and always has been. I would say that I have been relatively unsupported in my journey through whistleblowing but singlehandedly I have been able to undercover evidence and establish some very important issues regarding the dangers of whistleblowing. I have ceased to respond to the media but I am always very happy to discuss matters with the public.

Ward 87

Pages

Wednesday, 16 July 2008

iwantgreatcare.org. I'M A DOCTOR, GET ME OUT OF THERE

0 comments:

About The Author

R v General Medical Council Ex Parte Pal 2009

Index

Important Judgments

Dr Pal's Legal Review

Blog Archive

Followers

Rita Pal reads

Search This Blog