Niall Dickson, head poncho of the General Medical Council was interviewed recently by the intrepid Pulse journalists. Pulse is reputed to have the best coverage of GMC material this side of the United Kingdom. Dickson decided to convince the medical world of revalidation, praying with your patients if you are Jedi Knight and Sex. In the days of Finlay Scott, the organisation rocked with rabid meanness, now it simply rocks with incompetence and GMC supremacy. Dickson has not told members of the profession that their data is at risk. The Information Commissioner has a list of cases with findings against the GMC. He has not told the profession that they can be investigated without being informed of it. Revalidation of course is the GMC's excuse of shoving the blame of Harold Shipman onto good doctors. As history shows us, the GMC were solely responsible for the catastrophe that took place in Hyde. Anyhow, we present Niall Dickson, head poncho of the Witch Finder General. Lets bow to his supreme highness..... and then say the words "Jane Barton" loudly.
The Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine has attempted to move the medical profession forward. They have recently published a paper developed by a number of leading NHS Whistleblowers. The paper is available for download here.
Whistleblowing has been a complex issue for the government. Even though Andrew Lansley has tried to instigate consultations, the slightly odd situation is that no one has offered to speak to the whistleblowers. Few whistleblowers were asked to the Mid Staffordshire Inquiry. Indeed, any concerns raised by whistleblowers are often dismissed.
The paper discusses serious problems with the current culture of medicine as well as difficulties with the regulatory bodies. Its recommendations are as follows
“Our recommendations are firstly that the profession, through the GMC or BMA Council, should commission a Consultation Group on Reporting Poor Care. This Group will examine the consequences to all parties from incidents of reported poor care. Second, the Government should consider establishing a Health Select Committee Review of Whistleblowing that would make impartial recommendations to Government and the profession. Third, the Government should consider setting up and resourcing a National Whistleblowing Centre similar to that in the US. We believe that only by open public scrutiny will constructive change be cemented into exemplary clinical practice”
Professor Bolsin asks the question
”The question that individual medical professionals must answer is ‘Which doctor would you prefer for your relatives or yourself? A doctor that is prepared to report poor care to improve your, or your relatives outcome, or one that is not prepared to do so regardless of the consequences to your relative or yourself?’ When the profession can truthfully answer that question they will be able to put in place the necessary structures for change. The people who deserve this most are our longsuffering patients”
The recommendations have been considered by Stephen Dorrell, Chairman to the Health Select Committee.He told the Independent, he was thinking about an Inquiry into whistleblowing, a suggestion put to him by Andrew Mitchell MP in 2009.
The Independent also commented on the above paper discussion an American style solution of a National Whistleblowing Centre.
So far, the media have [ apart from the Independent] have been reluctant to mention the existence of this paper. Of course, if you search for the paper on the internet, it is everywhere.
It is potentially as if the whistleblowers are effectively silenced by the media and refuse to allow the public access to the solutions presented by doctors. The Health Select Committee recently made recommendations contrary to that of the paper - namely that doctors should be penalised for not raising concerns. The authors argue that the terrain is currently unsafe and the GMC's position is uncertain on the subject of whistleblowing. We are informed that the GMC has been asked for a Whistleblower's Consultation to determine the changes required at the GMC.
Recently, Parliament released a glossy video outlining the function of Select Committees. We thought we would present it above. Our experience of the Health Select Committee has been interesting. We felt that the correspondence between us and the ever elusive Stephen Dorrell was rather fascinating.
We are of the view that the "select committee" are unable to select a broad range of witnesses, preferring instead to cherry pick their favourites. This leads to biased reports and a failure in the system that Parliament. The Health Select Committee has failed to scrutinise appropriately preferring a glossed approach.
For years, the Health Select Committee was ruled by Kevin Barron MP. So a Labour government had a Labour MP as Chair. Having refused a Inquiry into Whistleblowing in 2009, Barron can be found asking for an Inquiry in a EDM not far away. No doubt he is swept by the basis of public policy - a comic book called Private Eye.
Now, the ruling Coalition Government has a Conservative MP as Chair. We wonder how a chairman will wish to hold his own party to account. Dorrell is less than transparent about the manner in which the Select Committee "works". We asked him a few searching questions and as usual he evaded these. The audience should note that sometime ago, the Health Select Committee dismissed a large volume of evidence sent from our numerous members. Having done so, the Health Select Committee copies our idea of an Inquiry into Complaints and Litigation and one on Whistleblowing without acknowledgement. Prior to submission to these inquiries, everyone should pay heed to this phenomena.
So far the Inquiries concerning health have been based on the "selective" cherry picked witnesses leaving large proportions of members of the public without a voice. Indeed, there is no logic or rationale on how witnesses are chosen.
28th January 2011.
Dear Sir,
I was advised this week that the Health Select Committee refused to invite NHS Reform and its members in an inquiry concerning NHS Complaints. No reason was given for this. The "selective" approach by the Health Select Committee has been a trait everyone has noticed. For instance, no whistleblower eg Stephen Bolsin et al was invited to the Patient Safety Inquiry sometime ago. Comments on whistleblowing were made by a non whistleblower.
We would therefore like your responses to the following :- [ referring to the most recent inquiry into NHS Complaints].
1. Do you believe that the Health Select Committee should investigate issues related to the health service "independently"?
2. If your answer to [1] is "yes", please outline how your position as Chair and your membership with the Conservative Party will ensure independent scrutiny of the current government and the effectiveness of its health policy.
3. Please provide the policy, procedure and methodology on how witnesses are selected for the HSC.
4. How many members of the following groups do you have as witnesses
a. Number of caucasian vs ethnic individuals
b. Number of disabled individuals
c. Number of individuals who are elderly.
d. Number of individuals who have suffered mental illness.
5. I would be grateful for your Equality and Diversity Policy. Please explain how this equality policy is operational during the selection of these witnesses.
6. Please provide a succinct reason why NHS Reform was not invited to the Inquiry.
7. Please declare all the interests/financial or otherwise of the current Committee members.
8. Please outline how your current "selection" of witnesses is representative of the UK population?
9. How do you believe the Health Select Committee reports have improved the NHS or healthcare for the public. At present, litigation is at its highest, medical error rates are escalating and mortality rates are probably at its worst.
10. Who is the Health Select Committee and its members accountable to? What is the line of accountability?
11. How is the performance of the HSC reviewed and improved?
Thankyou for taking the time to respond to these questions.
Regards
Please remember that the above are basic questions that should be answered by any select committee. The response sent to our colleague was this.
1st March 2011
The main issue that you raise is what you describe as the Committee’s refusal to invite NHS Reform to give evidence. The Committee has not refused to issue such an invitation. It chose groups to give oral evidence on 1 February from amongst those who had submitted written evidence, which NHS Reform has not done so far. If it wishes to submit a memorandum now we would be happy to consider it.
Stephen Dorrell
So we persisted......................
1st March 2011
Dear Mr Dorrell,
Thankyou for your recent correspondence.
Firstly, I am aware that ample evidence was submitted by NHS Reform. This was dismissed by yourselves. Nevertheless, this issue was not only reason for my list of questions. I am investigating the manner in which the Health Select Committee functions.
You state "The main issue that you raise is what you describe as the Committee’s refusal to invite NHS Reform to give evidence". Once again, I would like you to respond to the questions below referring to the numbering I have outlined. The questions asked relate to your Committee's compliance with Equality Legislation. Indeed, if the Committee was compliant, you would have no need to wrongfully abbreviate my request. I am sure your Oxford education equips you well in the talents of responding to questions asked.
I would be grateful if you would kindly respond to the questions put to you. I look forward to your responses. For your convenience, I enclose the original email in Appendix 1.
Mr Dorrell remained silent. We believe his silence demonstrates that there is no accountability of Select Committees. The very nature of having chairman from the ruling parties makes the accountability even more extinct. In the event, the Health Select Committee is prepared to respond meaningfully to the legitimate questions of transparency and accountability asked of it, please feel free to email us.
Welcome to our blog. Our website can be accessed here. We are a grass roots campaign group that believes in improving the National Health Services so that it serves vulnerable members of the public to the highest standard possible. We aim to provide useful information to patients and relatives. We also aim to highlight the important issues that members of the public should be aware of.
