|
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
|
|
Dr Rita Pal, Ward 87 Whistleblower, Wins Against North Staffordshire NHS Trust In 1998, Dr Pal raised concerns about substandard care on North Staffordshire Hospital’s Ward 87. Those concerns were, broadly, as follows: a) Lack of basic equipment such as drip sets She brought her concerns to the attention of the General Medical Council, who assigned Professor Rod Griffiths, the then Regional Director of Public Health, to investigate. However, unknown to Dr Pal at that time, Professor Griffiths reported to the GMC that, in essence, her concerns were baseless and that, although there had been some problems (which he took care not to describe), he understood the Trust to have taken steps to address them. When, in 2004, Dr Pal became aware of Professor Griffiths’ report, she initiated a formal complaint against him with the GMC. Her allegations were broadly as follows: a) He had stated without justification – and, indeed, before he
had even begun his investigation – that some of the issues she complained
of may have arisen “because her own performance was substandard”; With regard to the final point above, readers may recall that the Griffiths Report into Professor Southall and the CNEP trials was subsequently wholly discredited by the Nottingham Study, and was heavily criticised by Hey and Chalmers. During the course of her complaint against Professor Griffiths, Dr Pal became aware of two Trust documents – a 1999 / 2000 Review / Preliminary Report, and a further, much more detailed report dated 2001, which both went some considerable way towards supporting her initial concerns. The 2001 Report (click here to read) concluded, amongst other things, that: a) “Patient care was clearly affected by the failures identified”; Clearly, these findings were diametrically opposed to Professor Griffiths’ finding that there was no cause for concern on Ward 87. Unfortunately, both the Trust and the GMC refused to give Dr Pal access to the 2001 Report in its entirety, and so the full extent of the crisis on Ward 87 remains concealed from the public – and even from the one person who was prepared to blow the whistle on it. However, as her complaint against Professor Griffiths progressed, it became apparent to Dr Pal that both the GMC and Professor Griffiths, or at least his legal advisors, had had access to the full report, while only a heavily redacted version was made available to Dr Pal (click here to see a summary of the redactions, and here to see the chronology of Dr Pal's correspondence with the GMC as she attempted to obtain the full report). Dr Pal made requests of the Trust and the GMC under the Freedom of Information Act and the Data Protection Act, with a view to obtaining the full report. Both parties refused, and the GMC’s in-house solicitors (Ms Toni Smerdon and Ms Juliet Oliver), insisted that the redactions were minor and could have no bearing upon her complaint against Professor Griffiths. Yet, when Dr Pal asked them to retain the document as evidence pending judicial review of this decision, the (apparently) only extant copy of the 2001 Report was returned to the Trust with almost indecent haste. Click the links below to see the correspondence: Letter
7 Oct 2005 Unsurprisingly, in view of this level of complicity between the GMC and the other parties involved in the complaint, Professor Griffiths was “let off”, as we reported here. Although the GMC’s decision pointed out flaws in his conduct, it seems that they were prepared to overlook them. No documents were obtained from the Department of Health or North Staffordshire NHS Trust, and no attempt was made to adequately resolve conflicting evidence. In short, the GMC attempted to sweep the complaint under the rug. However, Dr Pal was not to be deterred, and made a complaint to the Information Commissioner regarding the Trust’s failure to provide an unredacted copy of the 2001 Report. The Information Commissioner found that the public authority had not complied with Section 17(1)b and c of the Freedom of Information Act, as it failed to state in its refusal notice that Sections 40 and 42 were applicable to the information requested, and failed to explain why they applied. Consequently, the Trust has been ordered to disclose certain parts of the report to Dr Pal. So far, it has taken Dr Pal 9 years to obtain even this degree of confirmation that her initial complaint was justified. It is a matter of some considerable concern that a whistleblower is prohibited from having unfettered access to a report into their own concerns – and one must wonder what the Trust is trying so desperately to hide. Neither the NHS nor the Department of Health has taken any responsibility for this absurd position, but, in allowing it to continue, they have accepted, and even demonstrated, that it is right and proper behaviour to attempt to discredit a whistleblower to the fullest extent of their ability. Naturally, Dr Pal is not inclined to let matters rest here; the death rate on Ward 87 at the material time remains undisclosed, and, so says the Trust, is unknown. In view of the Trust’s reluctance to disclose anything at all about Ward 87 until it absolutely cannot avoid doing so, there does not appear to be any good reason to believe this strange assertion and, sensibly, Dr Pal does not. Nor, indeed, does anyone at NHS Exposed. It is only a matter of time before the Trust is unable to conceal the truth behind the terrible conditions that Dr Pal witnessed on Ward 87 almost 10 years ago. The ward was closed in 2006, but its appalling reputation lives on, and will continue to haunt the Trust until the truth is finally known. Watch this space.
|
|
|
|
|
[Home] [NHS Exposed] [Patients] [Health Workers] [NHS in Crisis] [Legal Issues] [Media] [Helpdesk] [Public Views] All copyright remains with original authors unless otherwise stated. |
