Ward 87: Support Raj Mattu

Monday, 25 January 2010

Support Raj Mattu

It appears that the half witted, idiotic, malicious management of University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire (UHCW) NHS Trust have struck again. Raj Mattu is in trouble and the NHS management are not held accountable yet again. Clearly management have nothing better to do there apart from harass Dr Mattu. University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust came in the top 27 of the killer hospitals but clearly patient safety is the least of their concerns. I was just wondering whether the management there would like to apply even one beeping brain cell to "good patient care".

Raj's band of Robin Hood's sent a circular round today which I supported. This is my letter of support [see below]. This letter is dedicated to all the seriously flawed characters who climb the greasy pole to management status. Of course, I dislike management having known at least two sets of dysfunctional idiots with glorified titles. One set at North Staffordshire NHS Trust and the other set at Worcestershire Mental Health Trust. Of course, I know the Midlands set very well. I am not quite clear why Raj's Trust insist on mobbing him when they could apply their copious spare time improving their death rate.

Everyone can read more about Raj here [http://www.reinstatedoctorrajmattu.co.uk/]

Sir David Nicholson,

Richmond House,

79 Whitehall,

London SW1A 2NS

Dear Sir/ Madam,

RE: Dr Raj Mattu.

I wish to express my deep concern at the way the University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire (UHCW) NHS Trust has mishandled the use of public money in the case of the suspension and reinstatement of Dr Raj Mattu.

It is quite wrong that so much money has been spent by hospital managers on preventing for so long this highly regarded heart specialist from doing his job of treating patients with heart problems.

He has been completely cleared of all wrongdoing by the highest medical authority in the land and I call for immediate action to have him fully reskilled and restored to the position he held prior to his suspension, and ask for a formal investigation of the Trust Managers that are responsible for these actions and the discrimination that Dr Mattu has been seen to have faced.

I believe that there should be a Health Select Committee Review on the issue Whistleblowing so that recommendations can be made to encourage an improvement in the way the system deals with doctors who raise legitimate concerns to improve patient safety. He is currently the subject of phenomena called Sham Peer Review which is a type to Mobbing[1]. This is not recognised in the United Kingdom as most of the research appears to be in the US.

Nevertheless, the manner in which management has dealt with Raj Mattu is essentially compromising patient safety nationwide as it is sending another message that doctors should not raise concerns due to serious reprisals.

The Trust management should be aware that they are subject to the Harassment Act 1997[2]. In the event, the Department of Health and other authorities cannot intervene in this matter; Dr Mattu should sue his Trust for damages under the Harassment Act 1997. This would be a leading case for the sake of all whistleblowers in the United Kingdom who are harassed beyond belief by NHS management.

Currently, there remains no mechanism by which NHS management are held accountable. Most have no training in the management of personnel and there is no specific regulatory body to hold them accountable. There is no revalidation or regular appraisals for dysfunctional managers. The issue of a regulatory body for managers should be discussed in the Health Select Committee Review on Whistleblowing. This review has been refused repeatedly by the current government. It is notable that no whistleblower including Dr Mattu was invited to the recent Health Select Committee Review on Patient Safety.

There are no doubts that NHS Management have violated Dr Mattu’s civil rights. There appears to be no steps taken to review Dr Mattu’s case so that this kind of harassment in the workplace is prevented. We assume that the NHS Trust management in Coventry is now an Occupational Health Hazard given the serious impact of the harassment on Dr Mattu’s health.

I hope you will take the necessary steps to ensure that this case is reviewed urgently with a view to ending this unnecessary harassment of a Consultant.

I hope to hear from you.

Regards

Signature:.................................................................................

Name:.............Dr Rita Pal...

NHS Whistleblower. Ward 87 North Staffordshire NHS Trust

[1] http://www.hospitaldr.co.uk/blogs/dr-blogs/campaign-on-bullying-needed-with-rise-of-mobbing

[2] Majrowski v Guys and St Thomas NHS Trust.

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

Monday, 25 January 2010

Support Raj Mattu

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