Ward 87: Health Commission Ignores 2001 Report

Wednesday, 20 August 2008

Health Commission Ignores 2001 Report

My approach to the Health Commission was interesting. It was fraught with delays and I had to chase up the email every month. Everyone must remember that I don't do this due to some obsessive nature or lack of acceptance of the status quo. One of my hobbies is to system test. Technically, the Health Commission should have been able to investigate Ward 87. The last Commission of Health Improvement ignored the concerns but did find against the Trust with respect of junior supervision. Over the years, I have tested a number of systems. Their reactions are interesting. I am going to present the email from the Health Commission. At the bottom of this email is the Health Commissions motto "Inspecting Informing Improving". Again, I shall repeat, no wider study of the patient data was ever carried out. The Health Commission was not bothered.

The MP in Stoke on Trent promised to refer the matter to the Health Commission but the Health Commission did not receive a copy. When this MP was asked for a copy of his complaint, he told the Parliamentary Commissioner that he had deleted all copies. That was convenient. That MP was Mark Fisher. Mark did a good job of placing obstacles in my path. He is also a liar because he had never any intention of referring this matter to the Health Commission. He simply did what all MPs do - provide you with lip service and hope you will go away. I have a selection of emails from our esteemed Labour Party toad which I will publish in time. As I said, if we waited for MPs to do anything constructive, we would be waiting for hell to freeze over. I am more convinced now than I ever have been - the only thing MPs get up for is sex. Nothing else inspires them.

Golly, someone forgot to change the system so that whistleblowers can approach the Health Commission directly. Dame Janet missed this out as did the Bristol inquiry showing us all that no one thought about the basics of whistleblowing.

----- Original Message -----

From: <Howard.Davis@healthcarecommission.org.uk>

To: <drrita.pal@virgin.net>

Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 6:59 PM

Subject: Healthcare Commission

> Dear Dr Pal,

Thank you for your Email which I read yesterday. I was sorry to read of your experiences. The Healthcare Commission's complaints remit derives from the NHS (Complaints) Regulations 2004. The regulations are primarily focused on patients, the family and friends and ther public. The issues you raise would appear to be in the context of your employment and so would likely be outwith the complaints remit.

At the same time I note that it might be that you are seeking to bring your concerns to the attention wider Healthcare Commission. With this in mind, I have forwarded your Email to the > Commission's Serious Service Failures and Investigations branch.

I hope this is helpful.

Howard Davis - Team Leader

Complaints
Healthcare Commission > Peter House > 5th Floor, Oxford Street > Manchester > M1 5AN > > Tel: 02074489719 > > ****************************************************************************** > > Inspecting Informing Improving

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, 20 August 2008

Health Commission Ignores 2001 Report

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