More than one person raised the issueThis is the article where Dr Shirine Boardman was supposed to have whistleblown in.
It said
1. There is no documentary evidence bar one patient that stipulates the extent of poor diabetic care. If it exists, then no one is presenting it.
2. The Courier placed on story upon another and came up with this
3. There is no evidence regarding the reasons she was dismissed.
4. There is no documentary evidence about the outline of her appeal.
5. Dr Shrine Boardman plus other doctors were involved in the article listed above. No other doctor was sacked.
6. Why was Dr Boardman singled out in a dismissal? Why not the other doctors?
My fellow bloggers have supported her wholeheartedly. Dr Grumble made his view known. This case has no turned into a whistleblowing case courtesy of the imagination of the newspapers creative word fixing and the bloggers imagination.
Now, if a story leaked out about any other doctor - without the relevant reports or documentation, no one would back it. It makes no sense that the Trust is not harassing the other doctors responsible for raising concerns. If it was indeed "whistleblowing" then we would have logically seen the Trust act against every one of them.
So my question is this - what has Shirine Boardman done? Can Shirine Boardman tell us? Without transparency, it is impossible to take sides. Totally and utterly impossible. It would be all of us jumping into the same boat of interpretation as the local paper. Was it a story spin or was it actually how it was? I do though think it takes a lot for a Trust to dismiss a doctor because they know legal action will be pending.
So I went to Diabetes UK, the support group that was supported by all these doctors. This is what it says
It said
"Diabetes patients and consultants at Warwick Hospital are calling on the county's health authority to improve services. Members of the South Warwickshire Diabetes UK support group have written to Warwickshire Primary Care Trust asking for a public consultation. They are unhappy with the way the service is run and want more involvement to ensure patients’ needs are met"
1. There is no documentary evidence bar one patient that stipulates the extent of poor diabetic care. If it exists, then no one is presenting it.
2. The Courier placed on story upon another and came up with this
3. There is no evidence regarding the reasons she was dismissed.
4. There is no documentary evidence about the outline of her appeal.
5. Dr Shrine Boardman plus other doctors were involved in the article listed above. No other doctor was sacked.
6. Why was Dr Boardman singled out in a dismissal? Why not the other doctors?
My fellow bloggers have supported her wholeheartedly. Dr Grumble made his view known. This case has no turned into a whistleblowing case courtesy of the imagination of the newspapers creative word fixing and the bloggers imagination.
Now, if a story leaked out about any other doctor - without the relevant reports or documentation, no one would back it. It makes no sense that the Trust is not harassing the other doctors responsible for raising concerns. If it was indeed "whistleblowing" then we would have logically seen the Trust act against every one of them.
So my question is this - what has Shirine Boardman done? Can Shirine Boardman tell us? Without transparency, it is impossible to take sides. Totally and utterly impossible. It would be all of us jumping into the same boat of interpretation as the local paper. Was it a story spin or was it actually how it was? I do though think it takes a lot for a Trust to dismiss a doctor because they know legal action will be pending.
So I went to Diabetes UK, the support group that was supported by all these doctors. This is what it says
An additional campaign
We are campaigning for pressure to be placed on Warwickshire PCT for an improvement in diabetes services in the county.
We are calling for a public consultation so that the views of people with diabetes, or their carers, can be heard and to let the authorities know that current services are not in line with Government health and communities policy.
Interested persons are being circularised urging them to write to the PCT putting forward pertinent questions such as:
- What is the PCT's vision for implementing the National Service Framework for Diabetes?
- Can the PCT provide a breakdown on their diabetes budget and how such monies are spent?
- What are the PCT's plans for developing better integrated specialist diabetes services in the community?
- What are the PCT's plans for implementing NICE guidance on structured education for newly diagnosed patients published 2 years ago? (Note: our local voluntary group have funded the cost of 2 sets of educational tools (£5,000) but courses have recently been scrapped)
- What are the PCT's plans for ensuring there is clinical governance and staff are trained and updated to provide best care?
- What are the PCT's plans for involving patients in decision making and being accountable to those patients?
- What are the PCT's plans for involving patients with diabetes on an ongoing basis to provide feedback on the services?
Doesn't seem logical that the two are related. They may possibly be related or the two instances
[her campaign and dismissal] may be independent of each other. While the Dr Scot had undercover information floating this direction and others, Shirine Boardman keeps her cards to herself.
At present, I would not stick my neck out and shout out loud about the dismissal being due to the above issue. The story doesn't fit together properly. Without further evidence, we are essentially stuck on this story.
[her campaign and dismissal] may be independent of each other. While the Dr Scot had undercover information floating this direction and others, Shirine Boardman keeps her cards to herself.
At present, I would not stick my neck out and shout out loud about the dismissal being due to the above issue. The story doesn't fit together properly. Without further evidence, we are essentially stuck on this story.
1 comments:
Very nicely argued, Rita.
Indeed, I can see that an argument could be extracted from all this to the effect that the dismissed doctor herself was not so hot at enabling patient involvement/support etc etc.
It may be that we'll never know, if Dr Boardman is reinstated at her forthcoming appeal.
No doubt we could have an interesting time arguing (in the more legal sense) the pros and cons of what we know about the case. All an amusement for ourselves until we know the facts!
I appreciate your perspectives.
Post a Comment