Spring 2002 Edition of The Whistle
|
|
Another suspension at Coventry Hospitals The last issue of The Whistle included a report on the suspension of two consultants at University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust. One of the two consultants suspended at that time was Alban Barros D’Sa who had raised concerns about a colleague’s high mortality rate among patients for colorectal surgery. The ostensible reason for the suspension was that he was alleged to have put improper pressure on a junior colleague to get information for his investigation, and an internal enquiry decided that a reprimand was sufficient sanction for that offence. The suspension continued for many months longer. Eventually the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s judgment that seeking the help of a Member of Parliament in trying to get reinstatement was not a valid reason for continuing the suspension, and Mr D’Sa was reinstated. Shortly afterwards the Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) inspected the Trust and produced a comprehensive report of its failings, which led to the Secretary of State to give the Trust a "no stars" rating and put the management on six months’ notice to effect a significant improvement. Among the failings requiring action were the following:
The third point was highlighted during the inspection by another consultant, Raj Kumar Mattu. In February 2002 Dr Mattu was suspended on similar grounds to Mr D’Sa (he is still suspended in November 2003), for alleged bullying of junior staff. This is a remarkable coincidence. My experience as a patient and the daughter of a patient is that it is endemic in the culture of hospitals for consultants to use contemptuous or dismissive language to or about patients and subordinates. This is not acceptable, but, except for extreme examples (and there are horror stories of consultants with impunity ordering junior doctors and nurses to perform treatments expected to kill patients) or persistent offenders, the solution needs to be to change attitudes, not to use formal disciplinary processes. When I complained in 1997 about a consultant’s contemptuous refusal of surgery to my mother in one of the hospitals run by the same Trust, there was no question of disciplinary action against the consultant responsible. The Trust does not explain its reasoning. It looks as though, whenever any employee highlights wrongdoing in the Trust’s hospitals, the Trust collects statements from anybody who has been involved in the investigation. If any statement reveals any evidence of any misconduct on the part of the whistleblower, even if the person making the statement has not made a complaint, this is used as ammunition to suspend the whistleblower. In theory suspension of an employee suspected of wrongdoing is a neutral act to enable an orderly investigation. In fact it as used as an act of oppression and intimidation. There are so many examples of unnecessary and prolonged suspensions in the NHS that the powers of management to suspend staff need to be severely curtailed. There should be an absolute limit on a suspension of three months. But within a much shorter period (say two weeks) there should be a requirement to satisfy an independent body such as a Magistrates’ Court that continued suspension is appropriate. The employer would need to prove that the alleged offence if proved would reasonably justify dismissal and that there is sufficient evidence about the individual who is suspended to pursue further enquiries that could not satisfactorily be pursued with that person actively in post. Sheila Porter-Williams 3 March 2002. Click here for follow-up report. |
|
Sheila
Porter-Williams |