Milton Pena. Document from Hospital DoctorRant wrote a excellent feature on "Milt" and coined the term " Shameside". Milton talked to the press about the same issues that I once did. For that, his Trust suspended him. The above is taken from my collection of articles featured in Hospital Doctor.
"Milton Pena leaked a dossier of shame showing that vulnerable elderly and critically-ill patients at Tameside Hospital were left unattended for hours because there was not enough staff to look after them.A nursing log for three wards revealed how patients sometimes had to wait all night for their basic needs - including food, toiletry help, medication and pulse checks"
Yes, very similar to Ward 87 North Staffordshire NHS Trust.
Unlike my hopeless colleagues in North Staffordshire NHS Trust who were a bunch of selfish gits, Milton's colleagues supported him. Of course, none of my colleagues have anything to say these days. They all read this website and assume I don't notice.
Consultants also backed Milton as they should.
At the end of this, the Trust invested 90 million into rebuilding the hospital.
Milton also wept at an inquest.
In 2007, Tameside NHS Trust was branded as " seriously deficient" by an Independent Inquiry.
The inquiry was achieved by a campaign group Tameside Action Group.
I don't know what happened to Milton Pena. I never contacted him. Whistleblowers always tend to be a little aloof. I have though contacted Peter Wilmshurst, Prof Steve Bolsin and Otto Chan regarding a request to the Health Select Committee to investigate the treatment of whistleblowers. Each has been reluctant to request this review. As I say, each whistleblower is always engrossed in their own case - few see the panoramic view of what needs to be done. Anyway, this is part of internet archiving hence I do write about other whistleblowers in the NHS.
For everyone's information, the Health Commission has no procedure where the whistleblower can directly report concerns. Milton's case was investigated by them because of the patient/relative complaints. In the case of Ward 87, the Health Commission refused to take up the 2001 and 1999 internal reports to perform a broader data study. The Health Ombudsman found this acceptable. No study has ever been done on broader data. The same size provided by me was a snap shot over two weeks. Again, Dame Janet Smith did not address this vital point. This point was also never addressed in the Bristol Inquiry.
The most interesting aspect of Milt's case is that the National Media did not feature it. I was told by a number of journalists that the Ward 87 was gagged from the national media. Thats fine, I hope each of the journalists' and editors loved ones meet the same fate as those on Ward 87. Perhaps then they will learn the value of improving healthcare by raising the concerns.
Unlike my hopeless colleagues in North Staffordshire NHS Trust who were a bunch of selfish gits, Milton's colleagues supported him. Of course, none of my colleagues have anything to say these days. They all read this website and assume I don't notice.
Consultants also backed Milton as they should.
At the end of this, the Trust invested 90 million into rebuilding the hospital.
Milton also wept at an inquest.
In 2007, Tameside NHS Trust was branded as " seriously deficient" by an Independent Inquiry.
The inquiry was achieved by a campaign group Tameside Action Group.
I don't know what happened to Milton Pena. I never contacted him. Whistleblowers always tend to be a little aloof. I have though contacted Peter Wilmshurst, Prof Steve Bolsin and Otto Chan regarding a request to the Health Select Committee to investigate the treatment of whistleblowers. Each has been reluctant to request this review. As I say, each whistleblower is always engrossed in their own case - few see the panoramic view of what needs to be done. Anyway, this is part of internet archiving hence I do write about other whistleblowers in the NHS.
For everyone's information, the Health Commission has no procedure where the whistleblower can directly report concerns. Milton's case was investigated by them because of the patient/relative complaints. In the case of Ward 87, the Health Commission refused to take up the 2001 and 1999 internal reports to perform a broader data study. The Health Ombudsman found this acceptable. No study has ever been done on broader data. The same size provided by me was a snap shot over two weeks. Again, Dame Janet Smith did not address this vital point. This point was also never addressed in the Bristol Inquiry.
The most interesting aspect of Milt's case is that the National Media did not feature it. I was told by a number of journalists that the Ward 87 was gagged from the national media. Thats fine, I hope each of the journalists' and editors loved ones meet the same fate as those on Ward 87. Perhaps then they will learn the value of improving healthcare by raising the concerns.
0 comments:
Post a Comment