A thought triggered through my head today. It was something that the delicious Richard Marks said. Something about the establishment marginalising whistleblowers. That is interesting really because since the write up of Ward 87 in Private Eye, I have noted a number of people commenting between themselves about the " Tragedy at Whistleblower Towers". The main issue about the medical profession is that not one senior person will reach out and assist. They never have since 1998. They will though watch the spectacle. I have noticed that with each senior who has discovered that I am a whistleblower. Their tune changes, they sidle up like a large snake against the General Medical Council, and merge opinions between them in the false security of the comfort zone that the GMC gives them. Apart from Prof Steve Bolsin and Dr Peter Wilmshurst, I have found the great majority of seniors totally unsupportive.
They do watch and stare at the spectacle and lament over the loss of a medical career and crow "Well, she wasn't suited to medicine anyway" or " We always thought she was a trouble maker". I think when you read these remarks through files and documentation, it is more a reflection of themselves than of me. Their perception of whistleblowers and their success in creating an example that if you raise concerns, you medical career is wrecked. Well, at least the message gets through but it becomes a revolving door effect with the net result of more patient deaths.
I remain unimpressed with the seniors in the medical establishment and the profession. I suspect I am probably a product of how ineffective the medical establishment really is in assisting people or decent doctors.
I remain unimpressed with the seniors in the medical establishment and the profession. I suspect I am probably a product of how ineffective the medical establishment really is in assisting people or decent doctors.
2 comments:
Dear Dr Pal,
I have just found this site. Following your comments I took the trouble to read the Panel Judgement.It states:
"The patient confidentiality which she broke in so doing concerned the care (or lack of care) which (certain) patients on that ward experienced in that time frame and their suffering in consequence."
It seems extraordinary that exposing a patient's suffering due to a deliberate and negligent lack of care can be considered to be an action to be prevented by the relatively trivial issue of confidentiality. The legalistic navel-gazing is as nothing compared to the suffering, cruelty and degradation being meted out.
The Panel had regard to the protocol drawn up between Panorama and Mrs Haywood, prior to filming, which stated:
"PRIVACY There are going to be major problems with privacy. M will be recording patients at their most vulnerable and compromised. She will attempt
wherever possible not to record any highly personal or intrusive procedures, however if she feels she needs to record evidence of bad practice she will continue to record but will try to capture medical staff faces wherever practical.
TAPES We will inform patients and / or their families that we have been recording on the ward. Our aim will be to wipe tapes which do not need to be preserved for various reasons but not wiped until senior member prod team has agreed.
FAMILIES Unless families have explicitly alerted programme teams to bad practice, they will not be informed about filming until we have finished and reach the consent stage. Once filming is completed, we will seek the consent of every patient filmed or where they are too ill or incapable of giving informed consent, families or where appropriate, a close friend will be contacted and given time to come to a decision without pressure."
The protocol recognised the difficulties with regard to privacy and confidentiality and the intention was clear that consent was to be obtained prior to the programme going on air. Mrs Haywood was not reckless as to her responsibilities - she actually took steps to address the issue of confidentiality in a way she considered complied with her duty in this respect.
The Panel, however, took the view that in handing over the tapes to Panorama confidentiality had, at that point, been breached, regardless of any intention to subsequently seek consent.
They went on:
"But paragraph 5.3 of the Code sets out certain circumstances whereby information may be disclosed outside the team (of nurses and carers). If consent cannot be obtained for whatever reasons, disclosures may be made only where
they can be justified in the public interest (usually where disclosure is essential to protect the patient or client or someone else from the risk of significant harm).
The registrant relies on that sub - paragraph to justify her action in disclosing the confidential information to the Panorama team. Moreover, by reference to the paragraph in the protocol relating to FAMILIES she can say that no patients would be shown in the Panorama programme unless they or their families had given their consent. She says she was justified in carrying out the filming and breaching patient confidentiality because of the awful conditions on the ward.
It seems to the panel that the registrant’s stance must be tested by reference to the words in parentheses. Was disclosure of the confidential information essential to protect the patient from the risk of significant harm?
The panel is sensible to the fact that there may be instances where disclosure of confidential information may be essential to protect a patient from significant harm. But it addresses the issue of whether it was essential in this case. The panel has concluded that, for it to be “essential” for the registrant to breach confidential information, she must first have exhausted all other avenues of addressing the inadequacies on the ward; alternatively there must be an immediate need."
The panel decided that the pubic interest defence could not be relied upon since in their view Mrs Haywood had not exhausted all internal means of remedying the deficit in care. They go on to say:
"In the circumstances, the panel find the registrant is guilty of misconduct. She followed the behest of the film makers who were concerned “to portray the truly appalling care given to some elderly patients” to quote from the Record of Secret Filming and Recording application for permission to film, rather than her obligations as a nurse. There was a conflict of interests here and the registrant followed her role as a person engaged by the Panorama programme rather than her duties as nurse.
Further the panel finds that the registrant’s fitness to practice is impaired by reason of her misconduct. There has been no indication from her that the misconduct of which she is guilty has been remedied. Rather she relies on the justification of exposing the conditions on the ward to the public not the need to discharge her duties as a nurse."
One of her duties as a nurse was certainly to preserve confidentiality, and it seems to me that she both recognised that duty and took steps to properly and fully address it by the protocol she drew up. The distinction drawn on this by the panel seems to be one which it was not necessary to draw and they could easily have taken a different view without compromising their rules.
I would suggest that a greater duty, both as a nurse and a human being, was to take steps to bring to an end the cruel and degrading treatment being meted out to the helpless elderly patients.
Amazingly, the panel noted that the claims from hospital management that all issues were being addressed were untrue, and it was not until after the programme was aired that improvements were made.
There is such a thing as natural justice, and the fine print of the law or the rules should not act to prevent it. There was no mention whatever in this judgement of the benefit brought about by Mrs Haywood's action, no mention of the patients, and no mention of the nurses, doctors and NHS managers who conspired in silence.
Mrs Haywood deserves the thanks of every one of us, as do all those brave enough to whistleblow. I sincerely hope this is not the end of the matter for her.
http://www.wandsworthguardian.co.uk/news/4309459.Widower_appeals_medical_watchdog_s_decision_not_to_investigate_wife_s_death/
http://www.wandsworthguardian.co.uk/news/4309459.Widower_appeals_medical_watchdog_s_decision_not_to_investigate_wife_s_death/
Post a Comment