Page 10 Private Eye I would just like to thank Private Eye and MD for their kindness in featuring the material below. They are the only mainstream publication to feature a summary of the evidence. I would also like to primarily thank all my amazing blogging medical colleagues, The Jobbing Doctor, The Witchdoctor, Dr Rant, Dr Grumble, the infamous Dr John Crippen who has shamelessly plugged me on his website since the dawn of time showing us all that wonderbras still work a treat! :).Eye candy is supplied to whistleblowers by Northern Doctor.
There has been a recent debate about the rise of bloggers. Without the medical bloggers, there would be no accountability in the NHS. It is those few medical bloggers who raise concerns on a day to day basis who are the real heroes in the NHS. I also know that blogging provided me with a platform to raise concerns in a environment where the media and the government silenced the vital issues of Ward 87. Had the issues been addressed in 1999 and lessons learned and applied to the rest of the NHS, 2000 people would not have died at Mid Staffordshire.
It has taken 10 years to uncover the evidence from my end but better late then never! I would like Neil Marshall of the GMC to read this very carefully because one day I am going to watch him sit on the stand and justify why the GMC took no action and allowed so many people to die. This is not about me but about the manner in which the establishment has shot the messenger. That messenger was shot despite the recommendations by the Bristol and Shipman Inquiries. While officialdom professed to protect whistleblowers at those inquiries, they were busy happily character assassinating me.
What was it that the GMC does, protecting patients was it? Let us not forget what the GMC actually did when I complained in the year 2000. This was done immediately a month after the complaint..... and let us not forget Harris HHJ damning judgment that labelled them a "totalitarian regime".
The court transcript from the case of PAL vs GMC, May 2004 before Judge Charles Harris is of interest
JUDGE HARRIS: For myself I don't really see why somebody complaining about the behaviour of doctors or the GMC, if that is what they are doing, why that should raise a question about their mental stability, unless anybody who wishes to criticise "the party" is automatically showing themselves to be mentally unstable because they don't agree with the point of view put forward on behalf of the GMC or the party. MISS COLLIER: That in itself certainly would not be enough.
JUDGE HARRIS: It is like a totalitarian regime: anybody who criticises it is said to be prima facie mentally ill - what used to happen in Russia.
MISS COLLIER: My Lord, that is very far from the circumstances of this case.
JUDGE HARRIS: Of course it is ..
Quoted from the Department of Health correspondence written by their lawyers.
" Our client was asked by the General Medical Council as to why the Complainant might have made these allegations and whether our client thought that the General Medical Council should proceed against the complainant for making what appeared to be accusations in an unprofessional manner"
A key question for the investigation into the appalling standards of emergency care at Mid Staffordshire hospital is: ‘Why did no member of staff blow the whistle sooner?’ In a 2006 Healthcare Commission survey, only 27% of the Mid Staffs staff said they would be happy to be treated in their own hospital, a powerful indication that standards were unacceptable. And after Bristol, the General Medical Council deemed that doctors had a duty to speak up when the service becomes so unsafe that patients are being harmed.
However, the experience of Dr Rita Pal in nearby North Staffs suggests that whistle-blowing in the NHS remains a thankless task. Dr Pal identified serious shortcomings in the nursing and medical care of patients on Ward 87 of City General hospital, Stoke on Trent, when she started working there in August 1998. These included a lack of basic equipment such as drip sets, a lack of adequate support and supervision for junior doctors, a gross shortage of staff and repeated ‘do not resuscitate’ notices. As a result, patient care was often poor, with a lack of baseline observations and routine blood tests, and there appeared to be an unacceptably high mortality rate.
In November 1998, Dr Pal articulated these concerns to senior nursing and medical staff, and put them in writing. As a result, she was bullied and victimised. She was wrongly accused of causing a needle-stick injury and inserting the wrong date on a drug sheet, and she found out that her previous consultant had been contacted to ascertain whether she was ‘capable of doing the job’ (i.e. flying by the seat of her pants with inadequate support and resources, surrounded by hostile nursing staff and patients dying unnecessarily). She requested leave because she (quite reasonably) felt unable to care for patients in this environment.
Subsequent investigation found that Dr Pal’s allegations had been spot on. A review in May 1999 by Mrs T Fenech from the Infectious Diseases Unit found ‘serious deficiencies in nursing practice’ and that ‘the level of care demonstrated for some patients on the ward at the time of my audit was nothing short of negligent.’ In 2001, an internal report concluded that the Directorate failed to take appropriate action when the allegations were made by Dr Pal and that patients had suffered from poor standards of care. And in March 2002 the Commission for Health Improvement still found ‘serious deficiencies’ particularly with ‘the level of supervision, workload and work patterns of junior doctors working within medicine’
So not only were Dr Pal’s initial allegations accurate, but four years later very little had been done to address them. Dr Pal took her concerns to the General Medical Council and – eleven years after first raising concerns – is still embroiled in a fight to ascertain the true extent of the harm done to patients on ward 87. A mature and safety-conscious NHS would have thanked her for raising concerns to help improve patient care, and acted on them. Instead, she has been bullied, falsely accused of malpractice and repeatedly denied access to key documents to help support her case.
Last week, sir Ian Kennedy, retiring chair of the Healthcare commission, spoke of the bullying culture in the NHS that still ‘permeates the delivery of care.’ Those who are brave enough to speak up about deficiencies in care are being pilloried and silenced. In such an environment, patient safety can never flourish. Dr Pal has lobbied (via her MP Andrew Mitchell) for the Commons Health Select Committee to investigate the problems faced by whistleblowers in the NHS. She has also started a support network for whistleblowers and can be contacted at dr.ritapal@googlemail.com
MD
However, the experience of Dr Rita Pal in nearby North Staffs suggests that whistle-blowing in the NHS remains a thankless task. Dr Pal identified serious shortcomings in the nursing and medical care of patients on Ward 87 of City General hospital, Stoke on Trent, when she started working there in August 1998. These included a lack of basic equipment such as drip sets, a lack of adequate support and supervision for junior doctors, a gross shortage of staff and repeated ‘do not resuscitate’ notices. As a result, patient care was often poor, with a lack of baseline observations and routine blood tests, and there appeared to be an unacceptably high mortality rate.
In November 1998, Dr Pal articulated these concerns to senior nursing and medical staff, and put them in writing. As a result, she was bullied and victimised. She was wrongly accused of causing a needle-stick injury and inserting the wrong date on a drug sheet, and she found out that her previous consultant had been contacted to ascertain whether she was ‘capable of doing the job’ (i.e. flying by the seat of her pants with inadequate support and resources, surrounded by hostile nursing staff and patients dying unnecessarily). She requested leave because she (quite reasonably) felt unable to care for patients in this environment.
Subsequent investigation found that Dr Pal’s allegations had been spot on. A review in May 1999 by Mrs T Fenech from the Infectious Diseases Unit found ‘serious deficiencies in nursing practice’ and that ‘the level of care demonstrated for some patients on the ward at the time of my audit was nothing short of negligent.’ In 2001, an internal report concluded that the Directorate failed to take appropriate action when the allegations were made by Dr Pal and that patients had suffered from poor standards of care. And in March 2002 the Commission for Health Improvement still found ‘serious deficiencies’ particularly with ‘the level of supervision, workload and work patterns of junior doctors working within medicine’
So not only were Dr Pal’s initial allegations accurate, but four years later very little had been done to address them. Dr Pal took her concerns to the General Medical Council and – eleven years after first raising concerns – is still embroiled in a fight to ascertain the true extent of the harm done to patients on ward 87. A mature and safety-conscious NHS would have thanked her for raising concerns to help improve patient care, and acted on them. Instead, she has been bullied, falsely accused of malpractice and repeatedly denied access to key documents to help support her case.
Last week, sir Ian Kennedy, retiring chair of the Healthcare commission, spoke of the bullying culture in the NHS that still ‘permeates the delivery of care.’ Those who are brave enough to speak up about deficiencies in care are being pilloried and silenced. In such an environment, patient safety can never flourish. Dr Pal has lobbied (via her MP Andrew Mitchell) for the Commons Health Select Committee to investigate the problems faced by whistleblowers in the NHS. She has also started a support network for whistleblowers and can be contacted at dr.ritapal@googlemail.com
MD
1 comments:
Well done Rita!
ND
Post a Comment