|
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
|
|
A Killing Field - Ward 87, City General Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent NHS Exposed has obtained damning documents showing that City General Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent, covered up appalling levels of patient care on at least one of its wards for almost 8 years. Dr Rita Pal, who worked as a junior doctor on Ward 87 at the hospital in the latter months of 1998, voiced serious concerns about the appalling standards of patient care she encountered there, together with the totally inadequate levels of supervision available to junior doctors. The Trust, which was in the process of becoming the University of North Staffordshire NHS Trust – with all the financial and other benefits that University status entails – apparently paid little heed to her concerns. She was ordered to remain silent about the needless deaths and suffering she had witnessed, and Professor John Temple, the then Postgraduate Dean for the West Midlands NHS Executive even suggested that she seek counselling for her concerns. Having exhausted all other possibilities, Dr Pal approached the media and, on the 20th April 2000, the Sunday Times reported her experiences in an article titled "Elderly Helped to Die". She also sent a report to the General Medical Council, and the GMC requested that Professor Rod Griffiths, the then Regional Director of Public Health, investigate her concerns. Professor Griffiths, a professor at the same University as Professor Temple, reported that, although there had been some minor issues at the hospital, these had been addressed and there was no basis for Dr Pal’s concerns. He also suggested that the problem might have had more to do with Dr Pal’s capabilities as a doctor than with the hospital. Taking Professor Griffiths at his word, the GMC then began a covert investigation into Dr Pal’s background and mental health, which, eventually, led to her beginning extensive legal action against them. In September 2005 the case was settled and the GMC agreed to provide Dr Pal with a letter confirming that there were no concerns about her fitness to practice. However, this did nothing to address her initial concerns over patient care and junior doctor supervision at City General Hospital. For some time Dr Pal had been aware that the Trust had compiled an internal report into her complaints, and she had learned through sources at the Trust that its findings confirmed her own experiences. But, under successive Chief Executives, the Trust refused to provide her with a copy of their report into the very concerns that she raised. Now, following a further request under the Freedom of Information Act, Dr Pal has obtained a partial copy of the report from the Trust and an identical electronic copy from the Department of Health, which we reproduce below in PDF format. It makes disturbing reading, showing, as it does, a snapshot of the appalling conditions that prevailed on Ward 87 during a period of just a few days. One might be tempted to think that these conditions were just a “blip”, an unfortunate circumstance that, by pure fluke, took place while the Trust’s report was being compiled. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be the case; a 2002 CHI report showed that junior doctors were still largely unsupported several years after Dr Pal raised her initial concerns. There is no reason to assume that this position has changed greatly, or at all, in the intervening years. Yet, despite the damning evidence of their own report and the CHI findings, Dr Pal has still not been able to obtain the whole truth from the Trust. The report they have provided is incomplete in that large sections of the text have been redacted (blanked out) – ostensibly to comply with alleged obligations under the Data Protection Act. In view of the mounting evidence that supports her experiences and contradicts his findings, Dr Pal has brought a complaint against Professor Griffiths before the GMC. Even before obtaining her own partial copy of the Trust’s report she was able, with extreme difficulty, to convince the GMC to seek a complete copy from the Trust. However, the GMC now refuses to provide Dr Pal with a copy of this document, despite the fact that Professor Griffiths has been allowed to have one. Bizarrely, the GMC claims that the Trust allowed them to have the report only on the understanding that they did not provide a copy to Dr Pal. This situation is clearly unacceptable. In legal proceedings each party must have equal access to all the relevant documents; any other arrangement is simply an unfair, unjust demonstration of bias in action. Accordingly, Dr Pal has advised the GMC that they have 14 days in which to produce a complete, unredacted copy of the document that they have given to Professor Griffiths. If they fail to do so they will face yet more legal action to force them to do their job properly – or at all. We will, of course, keep our readers updated on this fascinating situation as it develops – the feeling here at NHS Exposed is that Pal v GMC 2 is an entirely likely outcome. Watch this space. The NHS Exposed Team.
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
[Home] [NHS Exposed] [Patients] [Health Workers] [NHS in Crisis] [Legal Issues] [Media] [Helpdesk] [Public Views] All copyright remains with original authors unless otherwise stated. |
