NHS

Hemming's World Struck by Kittygate Scandal.

2010-10-22T14:52:00.010+01:00

Find Beauty

The colourful life of John Hemming MP unfolds in the public eye again. John Hemming was last stripped down by the Guardian in Hemmings Way. Today, John Hemming's wife known to us as " Little Miss Practical" has stolen Emily Cox's cat [ as admitted by her]. Details can be read in the Express. Emily gave birth to John's love child some years ago. Since the admission of the love child, Mrs Hemming has simply had to accept how things are. Essentially, she has been forced into a situation. Of course, Mrs Hemming should have effectively divorced John and led a decent life away from this now allegedly dysfunctional menage a trois.

Little Miss Practical who puts up a "front" for the media is clearly having problems dealing with Ms Cox. The reason behind the theft of the cat is not known. Even worse, the cat is now missing. The question has to be asked is this - what happened to the cat in question?

Instead of concentrating on finding the missing kitty who is probably starving by now, West Midlands plods have dragged the case to the Magistrates Court despite whining that they have no resources when it comes to other serious crimes. Yesterday, Al qaeda admitted that funding was being supplied by the United Kingdom for their terror activities [ BBC News yesterday] and West Midlands Police are too busy prosecuting Mrs Hemming. They were also hit by funding cuts. I wonder if the public would think that their finances are being used efficiently to prosecute a first offence that could have been handled with a official warning and the RSPCA.

No doubt, the influential John Hemming would rather see his wife locked up with the keys thrown away as opposed to discovering what made her steal. Was it her dislike of Emily? Or was it the situation John placed his wife in? The case is apparently proceeding to Crown Court. More info by the gossip factory at Daily Mail Towers.

In our world, if a cat goes missing, we advertise it in the newspaper and put posters up. In Hemming's World, the entire media searches for it. In these games at Hemming's playground, we are meant to believe John is a animal lover [ everyone say "awwww]. The media representation won't do him any harm at all and Beauty may just return after the mass media coverage comes to an end.

The Petulant Panelists of Tyranny Towers

2010-10-17T12:59:00.005+01:00

The Petulant Panelists.

The Myhill case result was really a product of a group of GMC petulant panelists. Their decision was not based on GMC jurisprudence or case law. Well, the premier regulatory body was once dubbed " a Totalitarian Regime" so we cannot expect much. The Petulant Panelists have opted to dictate to patient kind that the NHS way is the right way. Is it? Surely, patients have the right to free choice. An interesting argument here is that the GMC are attempting to run a monopoly, thereby forcing people into NHS treatment. If we were discussing "business", a monopoly may well be illegal. Limiting patients choice is not a good way to proceed forward.

Myhill's suspension has not been taken well by patient kind. I am not surprised. Few can understand why their view would be lower in the pecking order to that of a trumped up biochemist and a few General Practitioners. At the GMC, the patient's voice is a tiny one. Sadly, it is the degrees of the biochemist and the GPs that shout the loudest. Of course, they mostly scream hot air but we always knew that.

As I have mentioned in the past, we have a decision based on the fictional assumption of "risk to patients". There was no such thing as a "objective test" at the Myhill hearing. Indeed, we wonder if any reasonable tests were used by Tyranny Towers. So while Bad Science pontificates over this case, they can be assured that they know nothing about the jurisprudence of Tyranny Towers. This, in summary, means they are talking out of their back side :). The usual for people who fail to escape the trap of concrete thought patterns.

I feel that it is a tragedy that continuity of care for Myhill's patients have been terminated. The Royal College of General Practitioners themselves advocate continuity of care. It can be argued that the GMC [ by their actions] are placing these patients at grave risk. Perhaps the Petulant Panelists may wish to consider that aspect before puffing their chests and telling us they know best.

Mr Stuart Jones' Fiddles With His Test Tubes.

2010-10-16T18:11:00.009+01:00

The anonymous Stuart Jones Esq

Stuart Jones is a big girl's blouse. He made a formal complaint about Sarah Myhill then wanted to remain anonymous by walking around with a paperbag on his head. At the time, I really could not believe this. The best and worst complainants actually have the balls to be counted. His name was announced at the recent Interim Order Panel for the world. Everyone's jaws dropped. It was then featured in the BBC. Bad Science has now decided to blame me for the entire disclosure. The real culprits are the GMC. I am merely reporting it. I often wonder why those who post on Bad Science have such concrete thinking. At present, they are accusing me of being a poster called Cassandra. I have never engaged in posting on Bad Science and neither will I ever engage in it. Errrm some of us have a life...... [ it happens by the way].

I wanted to know about the man who would want Sarah to lose her livelihood and become unemployed overnight? Would Stuart Jones want the same thing for himself or would he be slightly miffed if someone in Sarah's camp made a formal complaint about him. The problem with a well loved doctor such as Myhill is that her patients adore her. Does anyone adore Stuart? Perhaps he just tries to engrave a heart on his chromatography paper. Some Bad Science posters are of the view that I should feature the GMC findings in the Myhill case. Well, I know the findings are flawed so there is no point in deliberating over tat. Stuart Jones is far more interesting. Indeed, hopefully we can find out more about Jones so that we can discover more about the man who would maliciously strip a doctor away from her satisfied patients. A man who would gleefully watch a doctor sink day by day in quick sand. Of course, a man who sits around watching his test tubes daily would know nothing about clinical medicine. The GMC has no written protocol that insists all doctors must follow the NHS way. This is of course the regulatory body who struck off Dr Allinson for saying that smoking was related to ill health. When Dr Allinson was proven right by the Doll Study, he was a millionaire through Allinson's bread and the GMC remained tight lipped. They were not gracious enough to grant a reprieve even a hundred years later. Anyhow, it is October and witch hunting season is now over for the GMC.

I have no idea whether Stuart Jones and his test tubes are registered with the Health Professions Council. Perhaps someone could check. There are rather a lot of posts on the Bad Science thread from Jonas that may warrant investigation. Anything these days is capable of misconduct. I should know as I invented the case law. I often wonder whether he is capable of placing his test tubes in the right order as he spends so much time on the internet. I wonder if he posts on the forum from his workplace which would be a naughty thing to do. I can only speculate of course as I know nothing about Stuart Jones or his collection of test tubes.

Mr Stuart Jones is Jonas, The Big Girls Blouse

2010-10-15T14:44:00.006+01:00

News hot off the Myhill case is that Stuart Jones, a Hospital Lab Worker is "Jonas". Jonas is the Big Girl's Blouse who posts on Bad Science. Jonas was last featured on NHS Exposed blog in April 2010.

Stuart is the infamous complainant in the Sarah Myhill case. Sadly, Jonas decided to maliciously place a complaint about Dr Myhill. This resulted in her suspension recently. Gleefully, Jonas continues to gloat on Bad Science.

Stuart Jones has the following degrees "BSc - Biochemsitry and Genetics MSc - Clinical Biochemistry DipRCPath - Clinical Biochemistry" [ as admitted and written by him]. It is a great shame that Mr Jones keeps making embarrassing typographical errors. Even in his original complaint one wonders whether he can actually spell.

The Myhill Case. Doctor faces two Kangaroo Courts in one week

2010-10-08T16:04:00.005+01:00

GMC IOP Panellists.

Hopping on the internet to revise "Sarah Myhill"

[according to our logs]

Dr Sarah Myhill faced a General Medical Council Hearing yesterday, won her right to appeal against illegal GMC procedures, but faces a second Hearing next week. By any definition these are kangaroo courts.

A kangaroo court is a colloquial term for a sham legal proceeding or court. The outcome of a trial by kangaroo court is essentially determined in advance, usually for the purpose of providing a conviction, either by going through the motions of manipulated procedure or by allowing no defense at all.

A kangaroo court's proceedings deny due process rights in the name of expediency. Such rights include the right to summon witnesses, the right of cross-examination, the right not to incriminate oneself, the right not to be tried on secret evidence, the right to control one's own defense, the right to exclude evidence that is improperly obtained, irrelevant or inherently inadmissible, e.g. hearsay, the right to exclude judges or jurors on the grounds of partiality or conflict of interest, and the right of appeal.

The GMC have erred in all these respects:

Determined in advance: at Dr Myhill’s IOP Hearing in April 2010 the sentence was discussed before the Hearing heard the evidence.

Manipulated procedure: the GMC were forced to adjourn yesterday’s IOP Hearing because they were in breach of their own procedures. The GMC failed to inform Dr Myhill of her legal right to call witnesses and broke the Data Protection Act (DPA) by using patient notes without their knowledge or consent in their attempted prosecution of her. Furthermore the GMC deliberately withheld information from Dr Myhill which she believed was essential to her defence. Dr Myhill has already received three written apologies from the GMC for breaches of the DPA. Indeed today, the day after her Hearing she received a further letter of apology from the GMC for further breaches of the DPA.

Expediency: The GMC are forced to conduct a further Kangaroo court IOP Hearing next week because they are out of time. The GMC have to act before October 28th 2010 and Dr Myhill’s team have been unable to ascertain what happens should the GMC overrun this schedule. The GMC allowed themselves 15 months to investigate one complaint and 8 months to investigate another but did next to nothing until this last week. They then served Dr Myhill with three Expert Witness reports within four days, one of which she received just 10 hours before making her court appearance.

Right to summon witnesses, right to cross examine these witnesses. Yesterday Dr Myhill successfully appealed against the GMC’s IOP and was granted adjournment. The GMC had misled her with respect to her legal right to subpoena witnesses for cross-examination at yesterday’s Hearing. However, the GMC then informed her that for the purposes of next week’s Hearing, even if she should go ahead and subpoena witnesses, they would refuse to allow these witnesses to be called. The reasons they gave for this is that the IOP is not there to check facts nor test the veracity of evidence. They have the powers to again apply sanctions to her practice simply on suspicion.

The right not to incriminate oneself, the right not to be tried on secret evidence: even now the GMC refuse to tell Dr Myhill what allegations she faces. She has to face a further Hearing next week on the grounds that she is a potential risk to public safety and that she has potentially breached sanctions imposed by the GMC at her last Hearing in April. As Dr Myhill pointed out to the GMC, every doctor in the country represents a potential risk to patients and is potentially at risk of breaking the GMC’s Code of Conduct. However she has seen no evidence to suggest she has done either, neither have the GMC given her any evidence to suggest she has erred. Dr Myhill can only think that the GMC has secret evidence that it is not divulging to her.

The right to exclude evidence that is improperly obtained, irrelevant or inherently inadmissible: in their prosecution of Dr Myhill the GMC used the notes of patient X. These notes had been purloined without patient knowledge or consent, illegally against the Data Protection Act and in contravention of the GMC’s own procedures. By contrast, Dr Myhill asked the patient for permission to use his private and confidential medical records, but this permission was refused. Dr Myhill respected the patient’s desires and refused to use the very information that was essential to her defence and which would have entirely exonerated her actions.

The right to exclude judges or jurors on the grounds of partiality or conflict of interest: at Dr Myhill’s April GMC Hearing the Panel was chaired by Mrs Angela Macpherson. For every other type of GMC hearing, the Panel has to be renewed for each Hearing. Yesterday Mrs Macpherson was again present. Dr Myhill appealed to the Panel that this was unfair on the grounds that any judgement involving Mrs Macpherson would be influenced by her need to be seen to be consistent. Dr Myhill’s request that Mrs Macpherson be swapped for another Panel member was refused.

The right of appeal: Dr Myhill argued that the IOP Hearing was inherently unfair for all the reasons given above. The GMC disagreed. She has no right of appeal. Her next IOP Hearing will go ahead next Thursday at the GMC Building, 350 Euston Road, London. Dr Myhill will be allowed to subpoena witnesses to attend the GMC building on that day but the GMC have said they will refuse to allow these witnesses to appear at the Hearing. Dr Myhill still does not know what allegations she faces, she does not know why she is a potential risk to patients nor what potential breaches of GMC rules she faces. Confidential medical notes that have been illegally obtained will be used against her and she will be unable to defend herself against these particular allegations because she refuses to break patient confidentiality.

It is indeed laughable that the Panel should seek to portray themselves as “fair and proportionate” by allowing Dr Myhill further time to consider documentation presented before her just a few hours before her GMC appearance whilst at the same time ruling that Dr Myhill:

Will not be allowed to call witnesses,

Will not be permitted to cross-examine GMC witnesses whose written testimony is flawed and inconsistent,

Will not be allowed to cross-examine doctors for whom Dr Myhill has evidence that their own notes prove that they laid false testimony to the GMC,

Will not be allowed to cross-examine the GMC Expert Witness who has claimed to be expert in Dr Myhill’s specialism when he is clearly not,

Will not be permitted to cross-examine members of the GMC prosecution team who have so seriously got their facts wrong with respect to past and present dealings with the GMC that Dr Myhill is unsure whether they are dealing with her case or someone else’s.

Furthermore, the GMC have disregarded her complaint that the GMC legal team unlawfully used confidential information relating to a patient at a hearing in April which Dr Myhill was not permitted to use under the Data Protection Act.

The GMC appeared unconcerned at the range of discrepancies brought to their attention by Dr Myhill with respect to the work of GMC staff. The most absurd example is of a member of the GMC legal team briefing an Expert Witness by describing Dr Myhill in the male gender and as a “consultant anaesthetic” (sic). As Dr Myhill commented after, at least the Panel knew they were dealing with a doctor who had balls.

The GMC are in no position to complain if the members of the Public present at the Hearing formed the opinion that the GMC are actively protecting doctors and expert witnesses whose work is sloppy, unprofessional and cobbled together at the last moment simply for reasons of expediency.

A further example of this comes from the Chairman of the Adjudication Committee, Professor Roger Green, who opined that Dr Myhill had broken GMC sanctions by prescribing medication outwith British National Formulary. His interpretation of the GMC sanctions applied to Dr Myhill’s practice was completely wrong – actually the only thing Dr Myhill is permitted to prescribe are medications outwith the BNF! Had Dr Myhill not pointed out this serious error to the Panel then she would have been considered in breach of GMC sanctions for completely false reasons. Dr Myhill graciously accepted an apology from Professor Green.

Dr Myhill also argued that the sanctions placed against her by the GMC were disproportionate and illogical. Because she recommended to a GP that he prescribe vitamin B12 and magnesium injections, at her April 2010 IOP Hearing Dr Myhill lost her right to prescribe all prescription medication from British National Formulary and lost her right to freedom of clinical opinion. The GMC appear completely unconcerned by the many letters from patients of Dr Myhill’s who have been directly harmed by GMC actions. Remarkable indeed, since the GMC’s logo is “Protecting patients”.

By contrast, as reported in the Southend Standard, a doctor who was banned from practice by the GMC after fondling a woman’s breasts when she complained of hip pain will be allowed to practise again next month, but not in south east Essex.

By contrast, Dr Freddy Patel carried out the first post-mortem examination of newspaper seller Ian Tomlinson, who died at the G20 protests in London on 1 April 2009. Dr Patel concluded that Mr Tomlinson died of natural causes linked to coronary artery disease. But two other pathologists later separately concluded that Mr Tomlinson – who had been pushed by a police officer – died of internal bleeding as a result of blunt force trauma. The GMC suspended Dr Patel from practice for just three months before he was permitted to return to normal duties.

Dr Jane Barton, who faced GMC hearing for the deaths of 92 of her patients by morphine and other opiate overdose, simply lost her right to prescribe opiate drugs. As Dr Myhill has commented, lucky she did not prescribe B12 injections or she may have been suspended!

What these three examples show is that as far as the GMC is concerned a doctor is much better off by killing patients Harold Shipman style with opiates, or fondling breasts and/or perverting the course of justice, rather than recommending B12 and magnesium injections.

On the basis of the above symptoms, if the GMC were her patient Dr Myhill would be forced to diagnose Alzheimer’s disease. The GMC should be very grateful indeed that their physician is not Dr Jane Barton.

Dr Myhill can be contacted on 01547 550 331 (daytime), or any time at office@doctormyhill.co.uk

Cynthia Bower's Past Life. Hauntings By The Ward 87 Whistleblower

2010-10-01T08:33:00.003+01:00

Cynthia's Ward 87 Hauntings.

She keeps the skeletons locked away

This is Cynthia Bower

"Cynthia Bower graduated from Birmingham University and began her professional life in social care. She spent a number of years working with children in a variety of settings and managing social care services for children. She moved to the Health Service in 1995 to work for Birmingham Health Authority, working as Director of Primary Care at the time of the establishment of Primary Care Groups and the first wave of Primary Care Trusts (PCTs).
In 2000 she became Chief Executive of Birmingham Specialist Community Health NHS Trust and in 2002 Chief Executive of South Birmingham PCT.

At that time South Birmingham was the largest PCT in the country, commissioning for almost 400,000 patients and providing a wide range of local, city-wide and regional Services.

In August 2005 she became Managing Director of Birmingham and the Black Country SHA and in July 2006 she became Chief Executive of NHS West Midlands.

In July 2008, Cynthia Bower was appointed Chief Executive of the Care Quality Commission, which took up its duties as the regulator for health and social care on 1 April 2009"

This is what it says on the tin about the CQC responding to concerns. I wanted to share a certain exchange with the public related to Ward 87. Ward 87 is a well known issue that skates quite close to the Mid Staffordshire Inquiry. It was a ward in North Staffordshire NHS Trust that exemplified the quality of care in that area. Despite two internal verified reports, numerous documentation, an expert report, the CQC have wholeheatedly refused to investigate the matter. We can only postulate as to their reasons for refusing to investigate. For starters, the ward came under the auspices of Cynthia Bower and her colleagues during her time in Birmingham. Anyhow, I wanted to demonstrate the CQC's attitude to whistleblowers who have a high evidence base. This is classical stonewalling. The CQC are so insecure of their position that they have currently refused to provide a press release on what they were up to when concerns were initially raised. This issue continues to haunt Cynthia. Of course, if she wasn't afraid of the skeletons falling out of her closet, she would instigate a review. In reality though, she and her colleagues have much to hide. Afterall, it shows that the local Health Authority had failed in their duty to protect patients.

This is their whistleblowers protocol. The CQC have admitted to the following issues

1. That advice given to me by the Health Commission [ telling me that they did not consider whistleblower concerns] was wrong

2. That the mortality rate at North Staffordshire NHS Trust was high.

3. Of course, we know the amount of negligence payout was higher than that of Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust.

CQC on Mortality Data

Dear Dr Pal

Thank you for your email dated 12th May 2010 in which you made a request for information in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), which the Commission received on that day.

You requested:

* With regard to North Staffordshire NHS Trust - The data that Chris Sherlaw-Johnson referred to in an email to Sarah Seaholme as follows: "Earlier data from Dr Foster does suggest that they did have more concerning mortality in years before 2003/2004."

The Information Governance Team has now processed your request and I can now advise you of the following.

Mr Sherlaw-Johnson was using the HSMR's (Hospital Standardised Mortality Rates) published by Dr Foster.

Year HSMR 2000/01 115.9 2001/02 113.5 2002/03 113.1 Dr Foster classified each of these as 'significantly high'.

As a note of caution. CQC take the view that a high HSMR on its own cannot provide a judgement on the quality of care being provided by a service. It merely raises questions, some of which relate to how the patients are being coded across the trust. It is also veryunfocussed and it is often more important to be able to look deeper into whether the highHSMR is unduly influenced by particular specialties.

I hope this explanation helps.

If you are not satisfied with this response you may request an internal review of the Commission’s decision. Please contact:

The Information Governance Team

Care Quality Commission

Communication with the CQC. Admissions in the CQC documentation highlighted.

Ms Patel

"As you can appreciate we had no knowledge or information about your concerns that you had raised with HCC or CHI in the past"

Don't you have a database?

"Dr Pal, in a past life shared information"

The facts are as follows, patient care was affected before 1998 [ the date of whistleblowing] until 2005 [ when the ward was shut]. That is hardly a "past life".

By the CQC's own admission

" Earlier data from Dr Foster does suggest that they did have more concerning mortality in years before 2003/2004" [9th December 2009 at 13.14 to Sarah Seaholme].

Yet, the CQC produced a bizarre letter relating to post 2005 mortality rates.

On the 19th November 1998, you wrote " Yes, this is a response to a letter drafted for Barbaras office. Happy to meet to discuss further"......

On the 23rd November 2009, you both decided to meet in a canteen [ a public place] to discuss sensitive data about patients and myself.

" Great, will try and find a spare office but may have to meet in the canteen".

Prior to that you wrote on the 10th November 2009

" I have discussed the contents with my line manager Suzannah Burden and we feel that the best way forward would be to respond to the various issues that Dr Pal raises but not as a corporate complaint". [?!]

You go onto say

" I have in various colours below incorporated some notes/commentary which may assist but please ignore them if you feel they are not relevant" [ no doubt playing with your marker pens and I would like a copy of this document].

You therefore studied and had access to my original email. You know its contents already.

Before that on the 17th July 2009 you wrote

c) The advice given in the email below is incorrect...... [Note - refers to initial advice given by Health Commission]

If you are planning on pleading your naivety regarding the events of Ward 87, you should consider your position again. Firstly, it is wise of you to assume that as doctors we have a level of intellect equivalent to you. Secondly, it is probably wise that you understand that I am not willing to engage in this kind of obstructive behaviour from the CQC.

You state below "In a separate email to me on the 11th May 2010 you have indicated that you have already submitted a summary to Baroness Young in relation to your concerns"

Given you read, used your highlighter pens, had meetings about my concerns to Baroness Young, I am surprised at your position here. Perhaps a case of selective memory loss or is it one of convenience?

I requested a press release from yourselves. It is a simple affair. Please provide it.

Regards

Dr Rita Pal

Now, for all the whistleblowers out there, does this kind of behaviour persuade you to raise concerns with this regulator or does it tell us all that we must just go away, eat some chocolate and leave them to their own devices. It is clear that the CQC staff are not in this world. Moreover, their assumption is that all whistleblowers are somehow less intelligent than they are. Their polite nonsensical obstructive responses are one of their trade marks. It does not occur to the CQC that the primary importance of a investigation into Ward 87 or a review into the manner in which the issues were dealt with is pivotal to improving matters for the future. Of course, I understand why Ward 87 will not be part of the Mid Staffordshire Inquiry. Each and every regulatory body has a lot of explaining to do having thrown themselves into a pit of no return. I am of course shocked by the poor intellect that appears to be endemic throughout this organisation. The place has no respect for the death of patients or whistleblowers. Their attitude is one of a self serving organisation. They appear to be of the view that they are essentially paid to write pretty meaningless letters. They fail understand that the tax payer funds them - thats you and me. They have failed the people of Stoke on Trent and they have failed the whistleblower. We conclude here that a whistleblower may unearth evidence and immediately forward it to the CQC but the CQC will pull the "its too late card". At the end of it and despite a mountain of evidence, the CQC will shut the issue down. After all, by then it becomes a "hot potato" and the negligence of the regulatory bodies comes under scrutiny.

Dr Rita Pal

Ward 87 Whistleblower.

Episode 1, A "Burden" on the Tax Payer

2010-09-29T16:11:00.007+01:00

CQC Staff.

Everyone has disliked the CQC [Care Quality Commission] since its inception. Historically, they have been unable to deal with legitimate concerns in a well informed sensitive manner. This is potentially one reason why the National Health Service is in such a disastrous state.

One person who bravely goes were no man dares is Mr Miguel Cubells of NHS Reform. An astute health campaigner, he decided to write to the Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust Inquiry. He had copied his email to numerous people including the Care Quality Commission. This is what he had to say

"Dear Mid Staffs Inquiry

Please find attached a document concerning the preliminary minutes of a meeting between a local patient group from the Wigan/Leigh area and local/national members of the CQC. The meeting covered aspects of poor care, corrupt complaints procedure, high death rates, legal services manager of the trust also being involved in a dual role incorporation Coroner liaison duties or the trust too (conflict of interest). Please note the attached document has been forwarded to Andrew Lansley SoS for Health and has comments for Mr Lansley at the start of the document.

The CQC have produced the preliminary minutes of which I have added comments in red type.

We as a group in Wigan/Leigh have been fighting hard so to speak in our attempt to have 900+ UNEXPECTED deaths (2004/05 - 2007/08) investigated by the CQC in regard to Wrightington Wigan and Leigh NHS FT but to no avail. This unbelievable amount of unexpected deaths is being brushed under the carpet so to speak by the regulator. Lessons will not be learned if past issues in regard to health care are not investigated and robust fixes put in place.

This trust like many others in the Country has produced more unexpected deaths over the same period Mid Staffs has had issues but not a hint of an investigation. A preliminary assessment being the only activity being conducted by the CQC into these high death rates.

Please also note this trust was also given prestigious Foundation Trust status when obviously it was a failing trust.

The "Rt Hon" Mr Andy Burnham (Shadow Health) is the MP for this trust, and trying to force him to act in regard to investigation of the mentioned issues has been tantamount to pushing water up hill. A thorough investigation would in my opinion reveal his shear incompetence as Health Secretary at the time and also his incompetence as a local MP.

The CQC Complaints Manager - Ms Suzanne Burden blew her head gasket and wrote this missive back

Dear Miguel

I am disappointed that you have shared these minutes before they have been agreed. When we spoke last week (you were in Greece) we agreed that we would discuss the minutes when you got back and negotiate what changes could be made, we also agreed that we would not include the names of individuals in these minutes as there are Data Protection implications especially as some of these people were not present at the meeting. I have to make it clear that you have distributed these notes without our agreement and therefore should there be any objections from the people mentioned regarding their personal data then they will be referred to you.

CQC have not agreed your additions (in red) to the minutes. The minutes were sent to the nominated person of the group for distribution and comment. We did not receive comments from anyone else who was at the meeting and as I mentioned previously I was waiting to negotiate with you before the minutes were made final. Therefore CQC cannot agreed that these minutes are a true record of the meeting.

I also understand that you have a Dictaphone recording of the meeting and that you want us to transcribe it for you. I was unaware that you were recording the meeting and I don't know how many of the other participants were aware. I have consulted with our legal team and again you may be guilty of breaching the Data Protection Act if all participants were not aware that you were recording them. If CQC had recorded the meeting and not informed you then you would justifiably have taken us to task.

Finally by making the minutes public before they were agreed and sharing the information with people who were not at the meeting you could have compromised the work of the operational team within CQC. As you are aware during the meeting we discussed the options available to us and what action we may take. We do not make this information available in the public arena before the event for obvious reasons and I am disappointed that our trust has been violated.

In future CQC will correspond on this matter only with David Eaton as agreed at the meeting, and any further information you wish to share with us should be channelled through this route.

I would urge you to continue to pursue your individual complaint with the PHSO.

Yours Sincerely
Suzie.
Suzannah Burden
National Complaints Manager.
Engagement Directorate
Care Quality Commission
0207 448 1798
Ext 3798

The next episode of this will show Miguel Cubells fighting back. It is quite obvious that the Care Quality Commission are becoming rather insecure about their dirty linen being paraded through various public forums. This is of course an organisation who is too concerned about its own organisation's failing reputation but fails to keep accurate historical records of important patient data. This is an email written to me regarding Ward 87.

"When I contacted you on 29/07/10 I said that the information you originally shared with the Healthcare Commission is no longer available to CQC staff and that if you would like to resubmit this information then we would consider it alongside all of the other information we hold on this service"

This is translated to mean " data given to the Health Commission and taken over by the CQC has been lost". " We have no idea where that data is and we don't care if it contains sensitive medical data". That is of course the workmanship of Suzanne Burden employed by the CQC and paid by the hard working tax payer - thats you and me.

Dr David Goodhead, Dr Neil Holden, Dr Dinesh Bhugra Support Local Criminal

2010-09-28T01:42:00.006+01:00

Royal College of Psychiatrists Supports Local Criminal

Dr Frederick Kamyuka is a Psychiatrist. He is a psychiatrist with a multiple criminal record. He has been under the GMC's eye since 2005. The warning on his record states as follows

"In Future,1. You must not drive whilst under the influence of alcohol and must comply with laws and regulations regarding driving motor vehicles;2. You must refrain from criminal activity which risks bringing the profession into disrepute".

Despite this, numerous senior doctors bent over backwards and supported him. Most belong to the tin pot organisation called the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The number of consultants who have supported him have been numerous. Legions of them have stood by him through thick and thin.

Of course, the tale gets better because he was recently convicted again by Teeside Crown Court. Despite this, Kayuka misled the court again. The details are in this article here.

"John Gillette, mitigating, said Kamyuka had no previous convictions, and was a highly-respected psychiatrist with a long track record of helping the community"

This was the statement made in court in May 2010. During this time, Kamyuka had a warning. He was also being investigated by the GMC on multiple charges. [ See appendix 2 below]. Despite these misdemeanors, the GMC have refused to issue an Interim Order, they have also refused to order an alert letter. Kamyuka was last seen working in Nottinghamshire. Ironically, one of his biggest fans, Dr Neil Holden is based there. How sweet. The case now proceeds to substantive hearing in the not too distant future.

Appendix 1

Psychiatrist reported to GMC over prescription
0 Comments | Northern Echo, May 28, 2010 | by Neil Macfarlane

A PSYCHIATRIST has been reported to the General Medical Council after he admitted forging a prescription for his depressed brother.

Frederick Kakuba Kamyuka was working as a locum doctor at West Park Hospital, in Darlington, in May last year when he attempted to buy the medication at a chemists in the town.

Teesside Crown Court heard yesterday that the pharmacist became suspicious and challenged the 61-year-old, who became annoyed and quickly left the shop.

Dan Cordey, prosecuting, said Kamyuka was later arrested and told police that the drugs were for his brother, an illegal immigrant from Uganda. Police have never been able to track him down and Kamyuka said that he had returned to Uganda shortly after the incident.

Kamyuka used a prescription pad from his time as a psychiatrist at the Bushey Fields Hospital, in the West Midlands, in 2004.

Staffat the Rowlands Pharmacy, in Darlington, became suspicious of Kamyuka because the prescription requested drugs that were not available in the UK.

They then contacted Bushey Fields and discovered that he no longer worked there.

"Clearly he should not have been using this prescription pad, " said Mr Cordey.

Kamyuka, of Montagu Court, off Grange Road, Darlington, pleaded guilty to fraudulently producing a prescription at court earlier this month.

John Gillette, mitigating, said Kamyuka had no previous convictions, and was a highly-respected psychiatrist with a long track record of helping the community.

Kamyuka's brother had appeared at his house in Darlington unannounced, and stayed with him for a period of time.

He had been suffering from depression and anxiety, but did not have access to a GP because he was in the country illegally.

Mr Gillette said: "He accepted from the outset that he abused his position, but did it for his brother.

"He said he had to choose between his professional duties and helping his brother.

He is horrified by what he has done. He admits that ultimately he should not have signed this prescription."

Kamyuka was suspended by West Park Hospital following his arrest in August last year, but he has been working as a locum doctor in the Nottingham area.

Judge Mr Justice Davis sentenced him to 100 hours of community service and ordered him to pay [pounds]500 costs.

He also directed that the General Medical Council be notified of the case.

Appendix 2

ANNEX A

ALLEGATIONS

Dr Frederick Kamyuka
That being registered under the Medical Act 1983 (as amended):

1. Between February 2003 and June 2003, you were employed as a locum staff grade psychiatrist at St Mary’s Hospital, Kettering within Northamptonshire Healthcare Foundation Trust.

2. On or around 15 April 2003, you wrote to the Royal College of Psychiatrists (“RCP”) providing a job description of your staff grade psychiatrist post for the purpose of obtaining educational approval towards your eligibility to sit the MRCPsych Part 1 examinations.

3. You did not inform the RCP that your post was a locum staff grade psychiatrist post and not a substantive staff grade post.

4. On 28 May 2003 on the basis of the information you provided in paragraphs 2 & 3 above;

(a) The RCP granted you educational approval for your post for a period of 12 months towards your eligibility to sit the MRCPsych Part 1 examination;

(b) You would have only been granted a period of 6 months educational approval had the RCP known that your post was a locum staff grade post;

(c) As a result you gained educational approval from the RCP for a longer period than you were entitled to.

5. In relation to the education approval for your post granted by the RCP, you knew or ought to have known that if you commenced any new post within the 12 month educational approval period;

(a) you were required to notify the RCP to update your training record;

(b) the educational approval granted to your post in May 2003 would become invalid;

(c) you would need to seek educational approval from the RCP for your new post to count towards your exam eligibility.

6. In or around September 2003, you left your post at Northamptonshire Healthcare Foundation Trust within the 12 month educational approval you had been granted in May 2003 and;

(a) you did not inform the RCP that you had changed your post as you were required to do;

(b) you did not apply for educational approval from the RCP for your new posts as you were required to do.

7. On or around 25 June 2003, you submitted an application form with supporting documents to Doncaster and South Humber Healthcare NHS Trust (“the Trust”) for Section 12(2) approval under the Mental Health Act (MHA).

8. As part of your application;

(a) you submitted a CV that stated that you were a staff grade psychiatrist, when you were a locum staff grade psychiatrist;

(b) you stated in your CV that “I am now Section 12 approved” when you were not;

(c) you submitted an application form for a diploma in psychological medicine which stated that you were a staff grade psychiatrist when you were a locum staff grade psychiatrist.

9. On 8 August 2003, as a result of the information you provided, you were granted Section 12 MHA approval by the Trust.

10. On or around 7 December 2007, you wrote to the General Medical Council (GMC) and provided a CV which falsely stated that you had held full registration with the GMC since 2000.

11. The statement in your CV was untrue as you obtained full registration with the GMC on 9 October 2002.

12. Your actions set out in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 11 above were:

(a) dishonest;
(b) misleading;
(c) inappropriate;
(d) irresponsible.

BMA Colleagues of Mr James " Choppy" Johnson.

2010-09-22T11:45:00.006+01:00

James "Choppy" Johnson in Action

Everyone has heard of the name "James "choppy" Johnson" by now. If not, you can read it all here.

He is the surgeon that North Cheshire Hospitals concealed for many many years. All his complaints were shut away in a room from far away from the public eye. This was until one patient found himself legless and a junior doctor was forced to do oncalls with a needle stuck in his head.

Scandal has hit Halton Hospital in large quantities. Their main medical supremos currently face the public cane by the stern GMC headmaster. In addition, scandal has hit the British Medical Association who appear to have turned a blind eye to this allegedly reckless surgeon . That's alright BMA - he only kept chopping everyone's body parts off because he was in a bad mood. Despite the fact that there is a man with no leg walking around ASDA courtesy of the skilled craftsmanship of Jimbo, the Department of Health has not issued an alert letter. By comparison, a alert letter was issued against a junior doctor at Halton for CV inaccuracies.

We wanted to share the names of Mr James "choppy" Johnson's colleagues and friends at BMA Towers [ see below] who all kept tight lipped about him. We then wanted to ask why none of these people ever raised the alarm earlier. It is a bit scandalous that the British Medical Association him advising on numerous health related policy issues while on their Board of Science and Education. Such faith in "Choppy" Johnson. It is so touching :).

During the reign of Professor Brian Jarman and Mr James Johnson, the biggest Race Relations scandal hit the BMA. Professor Brian Jarman denied any responsibility for this. This means James Johnson may well have been the fall guy.

"THE British Medical Association has reached a settlement with five doctors who accused it of racial discrimination.The settlement, reached at the start of what could have been a four-week hearing in Manchester, involves paying an aggregate of £130,000 to the doctors without admitting liability"

It is notable that BMA Towers obsessively visits this website noting down what is said about their prior marriage and love for "Choppy Johnson". They had jumped into bed with him for quite a long time before their tragic divorce. Perhaps he just wasn't good in the BMA bed. The BMA addressed the issue by showing their solidarity for Pfizer and Viagra. It clearly wasn't enough to sustain their relationship. Following their long bedroom foreplay, Remedy "Rabid Mob" UK interfered just before the climax resulting in such a messy messy situation. Jimmy Johnson was kicked out of the King Sized BMA bed.

Source BMA Website

Board of Science and Education
This resource was prepared under the auspices of the Board of Science and Education of the British Medical Association, whose membership for 2003/2004 was as follows:

Professor Sir Brian Jarman - President, BMA [ note - Currently with Dr Foster Intelligence]
Dr George Rae - Chairman, BMA representative body
Mr James Johnson - Chairman, BMA council
Dr David Pickersgill - Treasurer, BMA
Professor Sir David Carter - Chairman, Board of Science and Education
Dr P Maguire - Deputy chairman, Board of Science and Education
Dr P H Dangerfield
Dr G D Lewis
Professor S Lingam
Dr J Long
Dr S Minkoff
Dr S J Nelson
Dr S J Richards
Dr C Smith
Dr S J L Smith
Dr D M B Ward
Professor B R Hopkinson - Co-optee
Dr G Buckley - Co-optee
Dr N D L Olsen - Deputy member

Nice and clubby no doubt :). And here is how they used to be in the old days as well. All chums together.

"The Chairman welcomed five new members to the Committee - Professor Sir Cyril Chantler, Dr John Chisholm, Professor Brian Jarman, Mr James Johnson and Professor Colin Roberts. SMAC agreed a statement on Anti-Alzheimer drugs for immediate submission (published on 30 April). SMAC received a draft Report from the Antimicrobial Resistance sub-group and agreed that this could be submitted to Ministers after further editorial work (probably in July). SMAC also considered The new NHS White Paper, Our Healthier Nation Green Paper and Commissioning Specialised Services consultation document"

In the meantime, I don't think the man hopping all the way to ASDA finds Jimmy Johnson the least bit amusing.

Dr Rita Pal

Carry on Surgeon. Ex BMA Supremo - Jimmy Johnson chops a leg off

2010-09-21T23:31:00.007+01:00

Carry on Halton Hospital

A new episode of Carry on Surgeon appears to be unfolding in Cheshire. The ex darling of the British Medical Association [ who clearly concealed his misdemeanors for years] is getting a beating by the resident UK cane - the General Medical Council. Jimmy "Turncoat" Johnson, has apparently been throwing things around. The Independent Reports

"He was acting so "furiously" during one operation that he accidentally stabbed a colleague in the forehead with a needle, a Fitness to Practise panel of the General Medical Council (GMC) heard"

The GMC's Counsel was clearly on his rations of three shredded wheat. He even had his wig spinning at speed.

"Andrew Colman, counsel for the General Medical Council (GMC), said that Mr Johnson's behaviour "reflected rather a caricature of surgical arrogance that was out of place even decades ago, other than through the lampooning lens of cinema comedies."

"During the same operation on a 69-year-old woman in July 2007, staff tried to tell him that a bulldog clip was still in the patient's leg, but he was "in no mood to listen", the panel heard, and Mr Johnson proceeded to sew the wound up. He later amputated another patient's leg and is accused of failing to consider amputating a toe as an alternative"

So not only do we have a Junior doctor walking around with a needle stuck on his head, we also have a legless patient. Great! And why has it taken this long to bring him to task? How many pieces of anatomy had to be lopped off these patients before Jimbo was dragged to the GMC.

Dr Rita Pal

Dr Foster Intelligence. The Money Making Machine

2010-09-19T23:29:00.006+01:00

Dr Foster is well known in the United Kingdom. A fascinating little piece spotted in 2009 and written in the BMJ stated as follows

"Dr Foster is not, of course, a doctor at all, but a witty name chosen by two journalists when they set up a healthcare analysis company eight years ago to exploit the mass of data churned out by the NHS (“Dr Foster went to Gloucester, in a shower of rain…”)"

"Tim Kelsey from the Sunday Times and Roger Taylor from the Financial Times saw an unexploited commercial opportunity in the work of Professor Sir Brian Jarman of Imperial College. Measuring how well hospitals perform is not an easy task, but Professor Jarman had devised a way of doing it by using Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), data produced in huge volume by the NHS for accounting purposes. His key paper on the subject appeared in the BMJ in 1999.
Kelsey and Taylor’s timing was good. The Department of Health under Alan Milburn needed evidence to support and monitor progress in implementing the NHS Plan and, after some initial hesitation, embraced Dr Foster warmly. The first Good Hospital Guide under the Dr Foster imprint appeared in 2001. Hospitals were under notice to collaborate with Dr Foster, however little they liked doing it"

DFI [ Dr Foster Intelligence] was launched as a joint venture between Dr Foster and the NHS Information Centre in 2006. On 9 July the IC transferred its shareholding to the Department of Health. An interesting article by the Register described a report by the National Audit Office.

"The NAO published a report on the venture on 6 February 2007, Dr Foster Intelligence: a joint venture between the Information Centre and Dr Foster LLP, in which it says the authorities did not go out to tender to encourage fair competition".

"NAO head Sir John Bourn said: "By taking the decision not to carry out a formal competitive tender process in this instance, the department cannot demonstrate that the joint venture was the best structure to meet its needs or that it represents good value for money."
"They were further criticised, however, by Edward Leigh, chair of Parliament's Public Accounts Committee. He said there was no fair and competitive tendering and that the DoH ignored the rules.

"Not only that: there was an unseemly urgency to complete the deal," Leigh said. "And the department's blurring the lines between adviser and joint venture partner, by paying Dr Foster itself for advice on a possible joint venture with the private sector, was quite wrong.

"To cap it all, the department in its haste to conclude the deal, possibly paid some £4m more than its share was worth. In the absence of the competitive pressure inherent in a tender process, it is quite impossible to say how much it is really worth."

That is rather interesting as it shows a interesting viewpoint, i.e that Dr Foster Intelligence wishes to monopolise the market. It is quite lucrative of course.

"For the year ending 31 December 2009, DFI generated revenues of £22.1m" says the E-Insider.

This is an amazing amount of money. No wonder Foster dislikes any criticism of its abilities.

This healthcare information and data analysis firm co-owned by the Department of Health has been placed under review. I wonder if the report by the National Audit Office will be considered by Andrew Lansley Esq. Incase, Lansley has missed the small print, here were some of the recommendations.

"Among the NAO's recommendations are that all government departments should ensure that all future public private partnerships are advertised appropriately within the EU and maintain a competitive bidding process"

The Information Centre should ensure that all future services are procured competitively, and take steps to ensure a level playing field in health informatics, consulting with competitors of Dr Foster Intelligence to understand the reasons underlying any unwillingness to bid for work.

Health Policy Insight has a novel if not entertaining account of the shareholding details of the joint venture.

Monopoly and the eye for the money is a fine thing . The multiple flies in their ointment are the building number of negative critiques of their statistics. The main exposure of inaccurate data has been cleverly analysed by none other than Dr No. These can be read on his blog - Death Bandits and Stiff Counting. Professor Jarman himself acknowledged that the mortality data produced by them would not catch the next Dr Harold Shipman.

The BMJ adds further to the debate

"Others say the Dr Foster method misrepresents how good they are. Alternative methods for calculating HSMRs exist, and in some cases paint a much more flattering picture. One reason for this may be that hospitals do not invariably “code” their patients fully. If a patient has four or five co-morbidities (conditions that make survival less likely) then this should be taken into account and corrected for. If they are not recorded properly, then a hospital will have a higher HSMR than it should. There may even—perish the thought—be the suggestion that clever hospitals are exaggerating co-morbidities to improve their HSMRs. It wouldn’t be the first time a target has been “gamed” in the NHS.

Another possible source of error is that Dr Foster counts only deaths that occur in hospital. If patients are discharged and die the next day, at home or in a hospice, their deaths go unrecorded. Professor Jarman has shown that in-hospital mortality is a good proxy for all deaths within 30 days, but others are not so sure"

It should also be noted that while the BMJ laudably criticises Dr Foster, it is also responsible for repeatedly publishing the Ex BMA Presidents [Professor Jarman's] papers thereby adding kudos to his theories. Take this article by Jarman as a prime example. At no point does anyone declare Jarman's affiliations as a BMA member and the Ex President of the British Medical Association. The ordinary reader would never be aware of the links between Jarman and the BMA.

The BMJ states as follows

"The BMJ is published by BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of the British Medical Association"

Perhaps it is time to follow the recommendations made by the National Audit Office and open the issue out to fair competition. It is time Dr Foster competed with everyone else. I find it disconcerting that the Department of Health is reliant on a company run by journalists who in turn relies on the accuracy Jarman's statistics. Perhaps the Department of Health are simply desperate people looking for a quick fix.

The tale will be continued in the future in " Is Dr Foster Really Intelligent?"

Dr Rita Pal

Jimmy "Turncoat" Johnson's Revolting Tales

2010-09-18T09:24:00.009+01:00

Jimmy Johnson [Ex BMA Chairman's] Sends a Smoking Gun

"Jim thinks we ought to go through formal disciplinary process with legal advice then sack him. We may get done for unfair dismissal, but that may be the cheapest option in the long term. I told Jim that we may also be able to refer him to the GMC following discussions last night between Dr Williams and Dr Graham"

From "Watchdog urges suspensions rethink" BMA News 8 November 2003,"BMA council chairman James Johnson said: ‘Exclusion from practice can have a devastating effect on doctors and their families. Sometimes it is necessary but it is vital that, when it takes place, it is handled sensitively and speedily."

As part of the Johnson's Meltdown Series [ these can be read here and here], we felt it was only right and proper to link to a Guardian piece. Apparently, Jimmy's hearing commences this week.

It is rumoured that Dr Gerry Murphy and Dr A Khaleeli have set up tent with him. The three doctors from the dead beat Halton Hospital have been lined up by the GMC for the chop.

To quote a few extracts

"Dr James Johnson, 64, a vascular surgeon at the Halton NHS hospital in Runcorn, Cheshire, is accused of failing to warn patients about the possible risks of certain procedures, serious misconduct in some operations and shouting at a patient and staff who were helping him"

"A summary of the charges states that a fitness to practice hearing "will inquire into the allegation that between June 2006 and January 2008 Dr James Johnson performed a number of operations on patients and did not make the patients aware of the potential risks and benefits of surgery. It is also alleged [that] some of the operations were not surgically appropriate, in the patients' interests or performed correctly."
The summary adds: "It is also alleged [that] Dr Johnson failed to involve himself properly in patients' post-operative care. He failed to communicate appropriately with his colleagues and patients and, on one occasion in January 2008, shouted at a patient and staff assisting him."
"In July the GMC imposed conditions on his registration, including that "with the exception of varicose vein surgery, he must not carry out any other vascular surgery procedures", must remain under the supervision of a supervisor at the Halton hospital and must tell any other potential employer about the conditions"

This will be good news for the few brave men and women who revolted against the establishment following the most spectacular screw up in medical history - formally known as Modernising Medical Careers. Instead of siding with the doctors, both of them decided to flop on the side of Liam Donaldson [the man who caused the problems].

This is the original letter written by Dim Carol Black and Jimmy Johnson. It has now been removed from the Times newspapers but thankgod for bloggers - Chez Sam has it. It is interesting that while Jimbo was using the "patient safety" card here, he may have been placing his own patients at considerable risk.

May 17, 2007

Junior doctors

Sir,

We understand the deep concerns of Morris Brown and his colleagues but cannot support their proposals (letter, May 14). The Review Group examined all the options available to remedy the failings of MTAS. They concluded that withdrawal from the process was simply not an option. We accept that the Review Group’s recommendations, while falling short of the expectations of many doctors, do offer the best available solution. The solutions favoured by Professor Brown would mean writing off interviews that have already taken place and risking either posts not being filled, or shunting doctors to nontraining posts. We agree that a better system is needed, but believe that it should be achieved through argument and negotiation, not action that could risk harming patients, the NHS or our colleagues. Doctors who only obtained one interview in the first round will, if unsuccessful, have further interviews in the second round.

We restate our support for the Chief Medical Officer and his role in improving junior doctors’ training. He pioneered the principles underlying the reform programme. Serious though they have been, it would be a far-reaching shame if those principles were obscured by recent problems with the online application system. The mood of our institutions is not one of resignation. We are clear that our responsibility is to ensure that the underlying principles for modernising medical careers are properly met. It is vital that the profession is united to lead a way out of this crisis, and on all issues related to the future development of training. We are also actively designing a better process for future years.

CAROL BLACK, Chairman, Academy of Medical Royal Colleges

JAMES JOHNSON Chairman, Council, British Medical Association"

UK's premier " The Rabid Mob"who go by the name of Remedy UK presents a interesting article regarding the response to the above letter.

"The junior doctors training fiasco has claimed it latest victim. Junior medics were angry that the BMA chairman James Johnson had written a letter to a newspaper defending Chief Medical Officer Sir Liam Donaldson, seen as the chief architect of the system.

It continued

"There has been growing disquiet for over a year about Mr Johnson's style of leadership. There were even calls for him to go at last year's BMA conference amid accusations that he was too close to government and did not consult with members enough"

There we have it, Johnson is nothing more than a common turncoat who betrayed thousands of junior doctors. Of course, now he will know what it feels like to have his career on the line much like the legions of junior doctors he failed to support during the MMC fiasco. While we know about the tale of Sushant Varma [ as featured above], we have no idea how many junior doctors were casualties at Halton's dysfunctional goldfish bowl.

For the his misdemeanors, the General Medical Council should strike Jimmy Johnson off the medical register. His scalpel should should be whipped away from him for good. We do recommend that he is locked up in the Tower of London with some duck tape over his mouth so none of us have to hear his hot air again. Sadly, this is the age of democracy and it is apparently that kind of thing isn't done. Sad really.

For the GMC's use, our summary is this, Johnson was a loose cannon during his time at the British Medical Association. He continues to be a loose cannon on the surgical shop floor. I am surprised that the Royal College of Surgeons have not intervened to peer review his alleged shoddy workmanship. Perhaps they are too busy playing with their new set of scalpels.

Congratulations to the General Medical Council for prosecuting Jimmy Johnson. May Johnson be ex communicated from the medical profession and left on a deserted island to fend for himself for forever. Of course, realistically, if the going gets too tough at GMC's Faulty Towers, his defence union will engage an early pension with automatic voluntary ejection from the register.For that kind of super ejection effort, he may need the services of Admiral Mary O Rourke.

David Nicholson Tells Us a Story

2010-09-15T08:28:00.007+01:00

Sir David's Department of Wealth.

Which Fairy Tale is it this time Sir David?

Whistleblowing is a touchy subject for David Nicholson, the bald head honcho of the National Health Service. There is of course a reason why he suffers from follicle depletion. The reason for this is the number of uninvestigated whistleblowing issues he has floating around the Department of Health closets.

David Nicholson has been telling us all a "story". I wrote to him sometime ago asking for a review into the Raj Mattu fiasco. On the 19th May 2010, he wrote

While I note the concerns that you have expressed, this is an employment matter between Dr Mattu and the University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, and as such it would not be appropriate for the Department to comment or become involved".

A reasonable assumption to make is that the Department of Wealth takes the view that each whistleblowing incident is something they would not become involved with. The above is a response the Department of Health makes to numerous whistleblowers.

We see the same response again here when Kim Holt and her supporters requested intervention

"Your letter asks the Secretary of State to intervene in an employment dispute between Dr Holt and GOSH. Any sugestion that an NHS body may have victimised a member of staff who was seeking to raise legitimate concerns in the public interest must be taken very seriously indeed. However, the Department has no place to intervene in what is essentially an employment dispute between an employee and her employer. "

Is this actually true, a letter from the Department of Wealth disclosed to me last night stated as follows for a different whistleblower.

Thank you for your email of 4 September to the Chief Executive of the NHS. I have been asked to reply.

I hope you will understand that we are unable to comment on possible payments to the former Chief Executive of Royal Cornwall Hospitals Trust (RCHT), John Watkinson, as this issue is subject to legal action.

Regarding the dismissal of Mr Watkinson, the Secretary of State for Health announced on 17 June 2010, that he had asked Sir David Nicholson to initiate a review into the approach and behaviour of the NHS South West in relation to RCHT; in particular, to the dismissal of Mr Watkinson and, by association, the Trust’s position in relation to the provision of upper gastro-intestinal (GI) cancer services in Cornwall.

Sir David has since commissioned Verita, an independent company specialising in conducting investigations, reviews and inquiries to undertake this review. The findings of the review will be published later this year.

Regarding whistleblowers generally, we will seek to promote the rights of whistleblowers by providing a contractual right to all NHS employees to raise concerns in the public interest as soon as possible, as well as providing the right of protection for whistleblowers in the NHS Constitution.

The government supports whistleblowing and expects NHS organisations to support staff who wish to raise concerns. All NHS organisations are expected to have whistleblowing policies and procedures in place that comply with the Public Interest Disclosure Act.

It is therefore clear that the Secretary of State is able to intervene in any whistleblowing case but tells the rest of us a fictional tale. In some sectors of the world, many would call this intellectual dishonesty. In the United Kingdom, this is normal accepted behaviour by the Department of Wealth who have since refused to meet with leading NHS Whistleblowers and have unilaterally developed policies affecting whistleblowers. It is notable that while Sir David has arranged a "private company" to investigate the above concerns, no such investigation has taken place into the Raj Mattu scandal, the Ward 87 Scandal and the most important Gosport scandal where whistleblowers were either forgotten or ignored.

Dr Rita Pal

Note to Sir David - send me the Ward 87 Department of Health documents and please stop delaying the issue. We both know whats in them.

Kinship

2010-09-11T07:47:00.004+01:00

Andrew Lansley is still in hiding.

When we arrive on planet earth, in general our proud parents care for us. On the sideline sits our Grand Parents, those who spoil us, and who we become immensely fond of. Then as life evolves ,we too become proud parents, our parents become Grand Parents. Providing this kinship remains healthy we try and devote as much time as possible to return the love and affection we had showered upon us but we all know life is a one way street and we all have to die one day.

Death is unavoidable but a healthy loving lifestyle generally extends the years and this modern world being blessed with modern medical science, gives us a better reassurance that we should live a longer than our forefathers. Giving us all more opportunity to care for each other, especially our parents as they go beyond three score and ten. Yes it sounds like a fairy tale but in kinship all over the world this really does happen, although there is always evil in our midst and if one of our kin is cursed to find themselves behind the black ball, disaster can strike at anytime. If a death is by accident caused by nature we have a built in resilience to cope with it no matter how long it takes. If on the other hand another human being causes it, we expect justice to take its course and the culprit dealt with democratically. Otherwise we endeavour to bring the matter to the Courts of Justice ourselves.

Again it all sounds like a fairytale where the Evil Witch receives the punishment she deserves, the way our parents taught us from the first children’s stories they read to us through to adulthood. But in the 20^th/21^st century Britain today evil is not dealt with as it is in the fairytales of yester year, and the ethics our parents taught us are not followed.

As I wrote previously, the opposite of good is not evil, it is apathy and until the good are prepared to stand up against evil, evil will always prevail.

To emphasize this point, from 1988 to 2000 under the umbrella of the NHS, a doctor named Jane Barton commenced the evil practice of hastening vulnerable elderly patients to die. She did this with the introduction of syringe drivers and the use of diamorphine and other licensed opiates.

In 1991 nurses working for her became so concerned at the vast increase in deaths they found the courage to complain, nurses who throughout their careers had only been taught how to care for patients and not how to hasten death. It took great courage because within the NHS is was seen as irresponsible to question a doctor’s judgment and those who did so invariably found themselves dismissed and out of work. Nothing was ever done to apprehend Dr Barton thus giving her a 10-year window of deciding who and when some poor soul should die.

At the time she was under suspicion from the relatives of those she was sending off to pastures green, we had a new Prime Minister under the name of Tony Blair who one saw as a devoted family man, a true believer in righteousness and who even introduced the Freedom of Information Act. With such a man in high office one would have expected the likes of Dr Barton to have been questioned and considering the hundreds of deaths in question a public inquiry held. But as Tony Blair wondered around the globe wearing his BioElectricSheild to keep him:

Feeling HEALTHY and ENERGIZED all day
Experiencing FLOW, PEACE and CONFIDENCE
Enjoying EXCELLENT FOCUS, MEMORY, CONCENTRATION

This was never to be and Dr Barton was permitted to continue her evil work until resignation. He once said that there would never be another Shipman and although he had introduced the FOIA, he allowed his government and all departments dealing with this case to keep tightlipped. Even after Pro Richard Baker had finalised the findings of his death audit, Tony Blair and his government prevented it from entering into the public domain. Christianity, Ethical Values and the Freedom of Information Act went out of the window.

Since the Labour Government lost power a new Coalition has taken over with promises of Honesty, Integrity and most importantly Transparency. So we expected Ethics to once again be paramount to those in office. David Cameron spoke of how to make the Government more transparent and allow people to hold ministers and public services to account. But has this been the case? I believe their promises were only to concern certain issues like Government expenditure and not the whole picture. Exactly why the case of Dr Barton remains in the closet and Pro Baker’s death rate audit sits alongside it. Why Pro Bulstrode’s relationship with his sister while he was working at the GMC has yet to be investigated. Why the Redclyffe Annex, Northcott House and the War Memorial Hospital’s death rate was so high and why Dr Barton’s use of Diamorphine reduced 15 times once she was investigated. 1990-1991-36000mg. 2000-2001- 3500mg. Proof or what?

David Cameron’s studies included Ethics, associated with the idea of morality and the search for definitions of virtue. Value. A family man and devoted father, who I see as the loving caring father reading stories of Evil Witches and always showing great affection for his and his wife’s parents.

Nick Clegg, another devoted family man studied anthropology that includes social sciences like how two or more humans interact with one another. So it would be easier for him to give light to the interaction of Dr Jane Barton and Sister Hamblin in the early 1990’s. A period when syringe drivers were introduced for the use of administering diamorphine and when the death rate of patients rose dramatically, with hundreds of death certificates stating ‘pneumonia’. Sociopaths I believe the term to be.

Andrew Lansley yet another devoted family man said one of his proudest achievements was running the Conservative campaign for the 1992 General Election. Should he ever come out of hiding and take the case against Dr Jane Barton through to Public Inquiry, which undoubtedly will lead her into a criminal court; surely that will make him even more proud. Especially as it may transpire 1000 deaths occurred under her supervision.

So what makes these three devoted family men stray from their ethical values once back in their offices. How do they manage to sleep at night having been with their wife, children or parents during the day and then think of the poor vulnerable elderly parents and loved ones who were put to sleep by Dr Barton. Or is it really ever in their minds at all? Do they not care because it never happened to them or is Dr Barton untouchable?

Why do they promote transparency but still hold Pro Richard Baker’s ‘Death Audit’ locked away? What does the ‘Death Audit’ figures reveal that they never want the public to see and why was a professor sent in to carryout such an audit if they never wanted the public to know the truth? Transparency means clarity but the only clear message the Government has delivered to the public is that no one has the courage to stand up and be counted in this case. There will always be feeble gutless people amongst us but surely not in the Government.

When the three of you next read to your children or Grand Children, tell them the story of the Wicked Witch of Alverstoke who played God by choosing who was no longer wanted and when they should be put to sleep. Tell them that these poor elderly souls were no different to their Grand Parents, only that they had to go to hospital to be made better but waiting for them was the Wicked Witch of Alverstoke. Then tell them that the Wicked Witch of Alverstoke lived happily ever after because you chose to let her escape justice. I am sure they will grow up being really proud of you all.

When the day of reckoning arrives for our parents, in kinship we hope to be with them and say our goodbyes. Dr Jane Barton even took this away from the relatives and loved ones, that is how Evil she was.

The three of you are beginning to disgust me. Stand up and be counted for once on this case, as I can see that it will never go away until you do.

Richard Kimble

Virginia Jibowu. The Executive Summary

2010-09-08T14:56:00.003+01:00

The Ultimate Test For Misconduct..

2010-09-06T11:02:00.009+01:00

GMC : Using Many Analyses of "Misconduct" Depending on The

a. Seniority of the doctor
b. Ethnicity
c. Uncomfortable personalities that challenge the GMC
d. Whistleblower status

The British Medical Journal is not our favourite tin pot rag by any means. Nevertheless, we had to bite our lip this month and thank them for featuring the article below. We felt it required more publicity than BMJ Careers allowed hence we have featured it in its complete form. The BMJ may whine but this is for the welfare of numerous doctors working in the NHS. The last MDU figures show that complaints against doctors are rising. It is therefore vital for every doctor in the NHS to have a copy of the Remedy UK case in the rare event they are investigated by their Trust or by the General Medical Council.

This is a excellent piece written by Richard Marks of Remedy UK fame. While Remedy UK are not best happy with the result, all doctors should download the court result of R v GMC Ex Parte Remedy UK and quote it to the General Medical Council as the test for "misconduct" operational at present. This case has exposed the GMC's arbitrary use and analyses of "misconduct" that varies from case to case depending on the GMC's mood at the time. Indeed,in her report, Isobel Allen pointed out.

"One of the main problems identified is that there is no commonly understood working definition of 'serious professional misconduct', through which a doctor may be disciplined or struck off the register. This has undoubtedly led to a lack of clarity among GMC members and staff on the criteria, standards and threshold to be applied in reaching a judgment on cases at the different stages of the complaints procedures"

The GMC remain tight lipped about the implications of this case. It should be noted that any doctor who has suffered detriment by the use of the wrong test of misconduct now has a claim against the General Medical Council for negligence, human rights abuses and damages for loss of their livelihood.

This is the first challenge to the General Medical Council by a grass roots campaign group supported by numerous doctors. It was in fact a historical challenge resulting in a and mark decision in terms of the case's practical use to doctors. While, Remedy UK did not win their case, they ensured that all hardworking doctors in the UK can be protected from the GMC.

They did what the GMC was unable to do - ensured that the court defined "misconduct". Well done to Richard Marks and Remedy UK Team for daring to make history in GMC jurisprudence.

Other commentaries on this case.

1. Misconduct by Doctors4Justice
2. Repercussions by Ward 87

When is a doctor not a doctor?

Published in the British Medical Journal - BMJ Careers

The piece can be downloaded here.

Authors: Richard Marks, Peter Gooderham,

Publication date: 18 Aug 2010

A recent High Court ruling has left Richard Marks and Peter Gooderham feeling that all doctors are no longer equal in the eyes of the General Medical Council

The recent High Court decision in the judicial review of the General Medical Council brought by RemedyUK raises a series of questions about the regulation of the medical profession and establishes important and controversial exemptions from disciplinary proceedings.[1]

RemedyUK referred to the GMC two doctors who were involved at a senior level in the planning and implementation of the medical training application service (MTAS).[2] One was the former chief medical officer for England. It was agreed by all parties that the implementation of MTAS in 2007 had been an unprecedented disaster, and RemedyUK asked that the doctors responsible be investigated for both misconduct and deficient professional performance.

The GMC response was to reject the referral. Its own guidance, Management for Doctors,[3] which RemedyUK had relied on, was, they contended, applicable only to doctors concerned with the delivery of medical services to patients. The present case had “nothing to do with practice of medicine,” and the registrar considered that the allegations of misconduct could not “sensibly be said to impinge on their fitness to practise as medical practitioners.” The GMC formally closed the case by reason of “the doctor’s profession is incidental to the matter”—an outcome used by the GMC to cover situations such as minor disputes between neighbours, one of whom happens to be a doctor.

To the High Court

It seems remarkable that the regulators of the medical profession would consider that the doctors responsible for controlling the working lives of other doctors and the staffing of hospitals are outside its jurisdiction. Worryingly, this has been upheld in court.

In his judgment, Lord Justice Elias confirmed that these doctors were not in positions sufficiently close to clinical practice as to warrant the GMC’s jurisdiction, and made reference to several precedent cases. He conceded that in Roylance v GMC[4] Lord Clyde had found a “sufficiently close link with the profession of medicine” to support the striking off of a doctor who had been working as a hospital chief executive.

But in the present case his Lordship ruled that doctors acting in these administrative roles were exempt. The court found that the doctors’ functions were “too remote from the practice of medicine” to be subject to the GMC’s procedures. This was summarised as: “The making and implementation of government health policy is not a medical function, even where the policies in issue directly relate to doctors and closely affect the medical profession.”

This seems to render current GMC guidance in Management for Doctors largely worthless. The judge also accepted the argument that it would be inappropriate for the GMC to assess the performance of doctors in this sphere of work because its medical assessors would need to possess “the requisite special skills to pass the appropriate judgment.” He stated that such an assessment could not be made in this case. And finally, he ruled that there could be no finding of misconduct for bringing the profession into disrepute, since the alleged conduct of the doctors had not justified moral censure or been disreputable.

Implications

This judgment carries important and worrying implications.

Firstly, it seems that doctors in some managerial and government roles may now claim exemption from disciplinary procedures in all aspects of their work. If they were to give incorrect advice or incompetently administer other issues—for example, in the organisation of on-call rotas or in the management of an infectious disease epidemic—then they could simply assert that they were “implementing government policy.” And when revalidation is implemented, the responsible officer in each trust will be acting as administrator, not doctor, which arguably is too far removed from clinical practice to merit the GMC’s attention (although paradoxically responsible officers need to hold a licence to practise). Another ramification is in the new era of general practitioner commissioning, where general practitioners are being asked to act as both doctors and budget holders and accountants. Plans to transfer the responsibility for commissioning most NHS activity to GPs[5] will be more attractive to doctors if there is no longer accountability to the GMC. We do not think this is necessarily in the public interest.

Secondly, the interpretation of the phrase “the doctor’s profession is incidental to the matter” has been made less easy to understand. It seems now that two doctors exercising huge influence over the delivery of health care are immune from GMC proceedings because their role is insufficiently close to patients. But this assertion (which is disputed by RemedyUK) cannot be reconciled with another GMC case, upheld by a High Court judge,[6] where it was ruled that a doctor who was no longer engaged in medical practice should nevertheless be investigated for possible misconduct after she had written something on a blog unrelated to medicine. This is completely inconsistent. Is there one rule for doctors working for the government, and a different rule for doctors who, in a manner wholly unrelated to clinical practice, express their opinions? Doctors and their regulators need new and explicit guidance on what sort of actions away from their clinical work can fall within the scope of fitness to practise.

Thirdly, it seems that difficulty in finding a skilled medical assessor is now a valid reason to reject a fitness to practise inquiry at the registrar stage. We suggest that opening this line of defence could have wide reaching ramifications, and we believe that in any event it should be possible to find suitable assessors if there is sufficient will to investigate properly.

Fourthly, the ruling that misconduct that brings the profession into disrepute depends on the motives and intentions of the doctor is likely to be a frequently used defence, and creates a new loophole that will always be hard to interpret properly.

Immunity for some?

RemedyUK did not fight this case for punitive or vindictive reasons. It wanted to establish the principle that all doctors, in all fields, were accountable for their professional activities. But the case has backfired so far and has created case law to give doctors in administration immunity, no matter how poor their performance. We suggest that this is wrongly decided, undesirable, and illogical. It gives inappropriate protection to bad doctors if their mismanagement or bad advice leads to significant shortcomings or errors, whereas those harmed by these decisions are left without an effective remedy. The undesirability of this was acknowledged by the Master of the Rolls in General Medical Council v Meadow.[7] It may suit the medical and political establishment but does not work in the interests of doctors or their patients. As Cameron-Perry said of another judgment of that nature[8]: “I can think of few decisions that are—to their very core—as odious, unsound, and unsafe as this one.”[9]

Competing interests: PG is a retired medical practitioner and a supporter of RemedyUK. RM is head of policy at RemedyUK and a member of council, Royal College of Anaesthetists.

References

The Queen (on the application of Remedy UK Ltd.) v General Medical Council [2010] EWHC 1245 (Admin). www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/1245.html.
RemedyUK. GMC case—the papers have been served. 14 March 2009. http://www.remedyuk.org/index.php/RemedyUK-News/GMC-Case-the-papers-have-been-served.html.
GMC. Management for doctors . 2006. www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/management_for_doctors.asp.
Roylance v GMC[2000] AC 311. www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1999/16.html.
Department of Health. Equity and excellence: liberating the NHS . 2010. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_117353.
The Queen on the application of Rita Pal v General Medical Council [2009] EWHC 1061 (Admin) CO/7386/2007. www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/1061.html.
General Medical Council v Meadow [2006] EWCA Civ 1390 at 17. www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/1390.html.
Macfarlane and Another v Tayside Health Board (Scotland) [1999] UKHL 50. www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1999/50.html.
Cameron-Perry JE. Return of the burden of the “blessing.” New Law Journal 1999;149:1887.

Peter Gooderham lecturer in law and bioethics School of Law, University of Manchester, Manchester
Richard Marks consultant anaesthetisthead of policy, RemedyUK London

peter.gooderham@manchester.ac.uk and richard@remedyuk.org

Persecution of NHS Whistleblowers

2010-09-02T23:55:00.003+01:00

These days, new reports have emerged whereby Managers fabricate malicious vexatious, frivolous, if not minor allegations of sexual assault against whistleblowers and report them to police. The only thing required is a police report and the whistleblower is in the dock and the word of one person becomes a wider investigation with millions spent in court to bring the issue to trial. The spectre of "investigation" begins where attention from the real issues [ eg poor care] is diverted by persecuting and discrediting the whistleblower. The question we ask is this, does the Crown Prosecution Service have any concept of organisational reprisals as applied to whistleblower? It is interesting that a vexatious frivolous allegation will be energetically taken up by the police and the CPS thereby wasting millions of tax payers funds, yet the case of Dr Jane Barton who ended the lives of many was dropped at the first stage.

Simultaneously, the Managers may refer him/her to GMC/other regulatory bodies and the poor person appears before the Interim Order Panel (IOP).If s/he is vigilant and has all the records of complaints, there is 50/50 chance that he may face sanctions until the issue is resolved by police which takes almost a year before the case reaches trial. During that period, the health professional has to disclose this GMC investigation in all his or her job application forms.

Meanwhile, s/he/ may well be suspended by the Trust, has lost his/her good name and if a locum, s/he is unable to work with other agencies as the Enhanced CRB disclosure will contain these charges and even the existing agency may not offer him/her a job. So virtually s/he is jobless with huge gap in his/her C.V, which has to be disclosed . He/She will have no other option except to find job secretly and hide him/herself from Managers who are 'haunting' and all out to spread more rumors to colleagues and prospective employers.

So after discovering, the NHS staff is subjected to allegations of sexual assault , the employer will try subtly ask him/her to leave or will not extend his/her locum and will be rigorously watched as a 'suspect'. So he/she has lost his/her friends, confidence, trust and avoids attending conferences fearing he/she may have to face members who had subjected him/her to subtle surveillance and organized mobbing.

Now the case reaches court. The prosecution may deny that it has anything to do with whistleblowing and wants reasons for malicious allegations. The NHS staff defends themselves by saying it's part of organized mobbing and it takes a huge amount of courage and risk to whistleblow and the allegations are premeditated just to discredit complaints.

Though the defendant says, the complainant might have motive to make allegation and the complaints might have gone to Care Quality Commission (CQC) who could have downgraded star rating leading to job losses affecting the complainant herself, the problem is how to convince the Jury which comprise only 12 ordinary individuals on electoral register who might have relavant prejudices/ bias . Also the defendant might not be articulate and impressive and lose the case altogether. So the consequences are that an innocent has a criminal record and ends up on sex offenders register, has ruined his/her career with no livelihood, out of medical profession and virtually unable to find a job overseas as he/she would be erased from the GMC/Other regulatory bodies' register.

Another scenario!!! the Jury may not reach a verdict and it could be a hung jury. The CPS may ask for re-trial. Are the consequences easily understandable to the public?. How can s/he prove her/his innocence if he/she is not in the UK and how can he defend without earning. How can s/he seek the services of a solicitor to challenge Enhanced CRB disclosure even if the charges are dropped but appear under 'other relevant information section' of the Enhances CRB Disclosure. The scenario is such that even if the charges against a whistleblower are dropped, the very fact there was an "investigation" is held against his or her name. The prejudice and stigma will be a lifelong sentence.

These are a few of endless problems such as Appraisal/Revalidation/CPD being faced by whistleblowers. If they raise concern, they are prosecuted, if not still persecuted.

Is there anyone in the town who dare to speak and help NHS Whistleblowers/????????

Tyrone Dyer

10 Downing Street. The First of Many Protests

2010-09-02T16:10:00.007+01:00

Sign the Petition for Elsie's Law.

A number of brave families marched to 10 Downing Street. This was the original press release.

They were featured by the following newspapers.

1. Gosport Families Call for a Change in Law. Portsmouth News.
2. Daughter Leads Elderly Care Protest. The Mirror
3. Daughter Leads Elderly Care Protest. The Express.
4. Protest News BBC Hampshire.

The Department of Health should be aware that this is the first of many protests. On each occasion, the numbers of people attending the peaceful protests will increase. It is time for an Inquiry into Gosport Memorial Hospital. Andrew Lansley should understand that this issue is here to stay until justice is done and seen to be done.

Will Powell's Speech at the AVMA Conference.

2010-09-02T15:42:00.006+01:00

Robbie's Mum and Dad.

We apologise for the serious delay in publishing this document. Will Powell has campaigned for justice for his son Robbie Powell. He was recently invited to the AVMA Conference and gave a speech that impressed every lawyer there. Many lawyers have sung Will Powell's praises. We have always felt that the quality of Mr Powell's narrative and correspondence has been of the highest standard. Will Powell though has always been modest about his amazing abilities.

Anyhow, this speech was delivered wonderfully. Congratulations Will.

Speech of William Cassie Powell to AvMA Annual Conference - July 25th 2010

Introduction

Good morning ladies and gentlemen.

I would like to thank AvMA and Peter Walsh for inviting me here today to talk about the importance of the introduction of a Duty of Candour for healthcare professionals, called Robbie’s Law, in memory of my late son.

And how such legislation would benefit - not only bereaved relatives - and damaged patients - but also healthcare providers.

I would also like to thank AvMA for their ongoing support and their campaign for Robbie’s Law.

The start of Robbie’s Law

It was Robbie’s case with the support of my legal team, Dr Michael Powers QC and Andrew Lindsay that actually highlighted the absence of a Duty of Candour starting in 1996 at the High Court in Cardiff.

In May 2000 the European Court of Human Rights set out the current position about a doctor’s legal obligation regarding honesty following a medical error. It stated:

"Whilst it is arguable that doctors had a duty not to falsify medical records under the common law (Sir Donaldson MR's "duty of candour"), before Powell v Boladz there was no binding decision of the courts as to the existence of such a duty. As the law stands now, however, doctors have no duty to give parents of a child who died as a result of their negligence a truthful account of the circumstances of the death, nor even to refrain from deliberately falsifying records."

In response to the Court of Appeal ruling in July 1997 the British Medical Association stated in the GP Magazine:

"GPs could now put a gloss on the cause of death without fear of litigation."

It is perverse and contrary to natural justice that the medical profession, for their own purposes, can actually be dishonest about the negligent circumstances of a patient’s death and legally put a gloss on the cause of death to avoid accountability.

In my view, this demonstrates a staggering disregard for the value of human life and legally permits doctors to bury their mistakes.

Some people may argue that Robbie’s Law would not make a significant difference - but I and many others would disagree.

Robbie’s Law would substantially reduce the ever-increasing cost to public funds regarding the inept and biased NHS complaint procedures and also the massive legal costs incurred in medical negligence litigation – particularly, when cases are protracted because of dishonesty – these costs are currently escalating out of control and have been for many years.

I personally raised this issue back in 1996 with Parliament and various authorities but to no avail.

Pursuing the truth in Robbie’s case has probably cost the State, the Medical Defence Union and the Medical Protection Society - millions of pounds and I am no closer to the full truth today than I was on the night Robbie tragically and unnecessarily died.

Furthermore, dishonesty following an adverse clinical incident exacerbates the already overwhelming grief of the bereaved parents or the next of kin - and causes additional psychological harm to the already harmed patient and the bereaved relatives.

Public exposure of dishonesty may also damage the health of the healthcare providers, becoming a major distraction and adversely affecting their ability to continue to provide appropriate medical care for their patients. Dishonesty therefore does not assist the healthcare provider, the damaged patient or the bereaved relatives.

If the government is not going to forthwith draft and introduce workable legislation to make it a legal obligation for healthcare providers to be truthful after a medical error - then we have a duty to our loved ones to do it for them. I am currently working on this with Dr Michael Powers QC, Andrew Lindsay and others at Robbie’s Law Trust.

It is also because of dishonesty that Robbie’s case has been hanging over my family and the doctors involved for more than 20 years - the mistakes that led to Robbie’s death could have been honestly investigated and addressed in 1990 and we could have all got on with our lives.

I could have found it in my heart to forgive all the Doctors involved in Robbie’s death if they had been truthful to us and shown remorse for their fatal errors.

We all make mistakes. However, I will never forgive them for their staggering disregard - not only for Robbie’s life but also for my wife, myself and my sons by reason of their cover up and their dishonesty.

Brief summary of Robbie’s case

Our personal nightmare began 4 months before Robbie’s death, in December 1989, when the child was admitted to Morriston Hospital, by ambulance, as an emergency.

Robbie was vomiting and had become critically dehydrated – he had lost approximately a third of his body weight in a few days. The abnormal electrolytes in conjunction with Robbie’s other symptoms were absolutely characteristic of Addison’s disease. The child immediately received intravenous fluids - which saved his life. A test to confirm the diagnosis of Addison’s disease was ordered by the consultant paediatrician but not performed and Robbie was discharged back to the care of the GPs.

Addison’s disease invariably results in death without treatment but is treatable with a daily intake of medication.

An untreated sufferer of this potentially fatal condition can look well one day but become critically ill the next - thus highlighting the urgency of receiving prompt medical treatment and intravenous fluids when becoming unwell.

The paediatrician did not inform my wife or I of the suspicion of Addison’s disease or the need for the ACTH test but did communicate this information to the GPs with clear instructions to re-refer Robbie immediately back to the hospital - if he developed further symptoms and a recurrence of vomiting.

Between the 2nd and 17th April 1990 Robbie was seen by 5 GPs on 7 separate occasions and was not re-admitted to hospital until it was too late to save his life – Robbie had developed vomiting and again become critically dehydrated in the days leading to his death - but this time - in the absence of timely intravenous fluids - the child had 2 heart attacks - the second being fatal.

It came to light that only one GP had actually read the medical records, six days before Robbie died – this GP informed my wife and I that he would immediately re-refer the child to hospital but failed to do so. He gave no details whatsoever of the paediatrician’s earlier concerns or the potential risk of death.

At this consultation the GP was made aware that Robbie was vomiting, had been ill for 11 days, was weak, was losing weight and had already been examined in the preceding days by 2 of his partners - all these symptoms were absolutely characteristic of Addison’s disease and the child should have been forthwith admitted to hospital – had he been - his life would have been saved.

On the day of death Robbie was seen twice by the same GP. On the first consultation she refused hospital admission and on the second she refused an ambulance to take Robbie to hospital. On arrival to hospital, just 30 minutes later, I watched Robbie take his last conscious breath.

Post Death Cover-up

The post death cover up started with the pathologist and the coroner who refused an inquest for 10 years. The 20-day inquest eventually took place - 14 years after Robbie’s death - with a jury verdict of natural causes aggravated by neglect – which should have been, in my view, unlawful killing.

After Robbie’s death I read the correspondence in the child’s thin GP medical records that had been received by the Practice following Robbie’s hospital discharge in December 1989 – it clearly informed the GPs of the suspicion of Addison’s disease, the need for the ACTH test and that the child should be readmitted immediately if he had a repeat of his symptoms. It also erroneously stated that the parents had been informed.

The letter was subsequently witnessed and noted by a reverend – however, this incriminating document was subsequently removed and substituted from both the GP and hospital medical records before both sets of records were disclosed to me some six months later.

Although it is not denied that Addison’s disease was suspected and that an ACTH test was requested - there is now no mention whatsoever of Addison’s disease in Robbie’s current medical records.

I complained about Robbie’s death to the local health board within 2 weeks of his passing and my complaints are actually still ongoing 20 years on. I have had 3 recent investigations by the Ombudsman all of which were upheld – the most recent being this year.

Over the years I have been let down by, amongst others:

The medical profession.

The pathologist.

The coroner.

The NHS complaint procedures.

The Welsh Office.

The Community Health Council.

The Health Service Ombudsman

The Parliamentary Ombudsman.

The National Assembly for Wales.

Dyfed Powys Police.

The Crown Prosecution Service.

The Civil Court.

The Court of Appeal.

The House of Lords.

The European Court of Human Rights.

The General Medical Council. and

Various Health Ministers and politicians.

Two local police investigations between 1994 and 2000 erroneous claimed that there was no case to answer. I later established that the GPs under investigation were actually employed by the local police as police doctors.

However, an independent police investigation - by an English police force - between 2000 and 2002 – 10 years after Robbie’s death - identified 35 criminal charges against the GPs and their medical secretary - these included charges of manslaughter, forgery and perverting the course of justice.

The CPS accepted that there was sufficient evidence to bring charges but decided not to prosecute because of the earlier investigative failures of the local police and the passage of time - which the CPS referred to as being an abuse of process - notwithstanding it was clearly the GPs’ dishonesty and the systemic cover up that had caused these delays.

The Welsh Assembly First Minister has personally advised me and my legal team that he is minded to have a public inquiry under the 2005 Inquiries Act and he is currently awaiting confirmation from the Attorney General and the Home Secretary as to whether they agree to a joint inquiry.

This inquiry will go a long way to highlighting the need for Robbie’s Law, along with the Mid Staffordshire Hospitals recently announced public Inquiry.

Closing Comment

I hope that I have been able to demonstrate to you that from the outset it was obvious that a catalogue of medical mistakes had caused Robbie’s death and that there has been a 20-year systemic cover up.

Rather than identify these mistakes - and learn from them - the medical profession - supported by the State - attempted to suppress and cover up these failures – it should be noted that Robbie’s case is not an isolated one and this is the position with copious medical negligence cases throughout Wales, England, Scotland and Ireland.

I hope you all agree that this behaviour by the medical profession and the authorities is unacceptable in a purported democratic country and should be challengeable in law – at present there is no effective deterrent to ensure that this type of behaviour does not continue and that this is why it is paramount that we have the introduction of Robbie’s Law without further delay.

Thank you very much for your attention.

The James Johnson Meltdown. "Well don't waste my time, I have a private clinic to get to, just let him die".

2010-09-02T00:36:00.005+01:00

BMA's Fallen Star

Dr Varma was not surprised that Jimmy Johnson was at the GMC Gallows. Jim had played an important role in Dr Varma's misfortunes. Given his bosses are at the GMC, we ask the question - how well did they all deal with Dr Varma?

James Johnson is the fallen star of the British Medical Association who now faces a humiliating hearing in front of the world media. This is what Dr Varma told us about Jimmy Johnson. Notably, the much admired establishment Dictabird at the BMJ - Ms Carbon Footprint herself, Fiona Godlee has failed to feature James Johnson. No doubt the establishment wants a quiet exit - in and out of the GMC. Of course, this isn't going to be a quiet sedate affair because we intend on covering much much more on James Johnson Esq.

-------------------------------------------------------

I am not surprised.

I worked at Halton hospital and he was the then clinical tutor.

I wonder if this referral has been because of his outspoken nature .

As clinical tutor he did several good things while I was there The postgraduate dean wanted the house officers to attend clinics. So he drew up a rota- it was never implemented.

My senior house officer reported me to Dr Williams for attending protected teaching. I raised this with Johnson who told me to direct the SHO's complaint to him. Nothing happened.

During a meeting with the house officers, he raised non attendance at protected teaching. He told them to drop everything and attend. He asked if there were any problems. I told him on his saturday ward round beforehand that the patient notes were not present. He said it was a big problem. I told him that during my time in general medicine if the notes were not present I’d spend 10 minutes per admission writing the name, date of birth and hospital number on forms, each sheet of paper and prescription sheet. Within minutes he wrote a letter to the medical director.

During that meeting he mentioned non attendance at X ray meetings. We told him that one consultant insisted on a ward round at that time. Johnson said that on his authority that we were to go to the x ray meeting- then do the ward round.

However, he is a vile individual. On a ward round he shouted at several nurses and at switchboard for bleeping him. He undressed and examined a female patient in a corridor on the ward round.

I told him one patient was terminal. Johnson replied

"Well don't waste my time, I have a private clinic to get to, just let him die".

Mr. Johnson ran a culture of fear and terror. There is a whole room of complaints about him.

The then medical director Gerry "memo" Murphy was aware of all this and did nothing

I wrote to him because an allegation of clinical issues was made. On 8/7/02 he replied saying he saw from my file that the hospital had dealt directly with the dean who did not feel that there was an educational component to the problem. Education and clinical competence go hand in hand. If one improves so does the other.

Unknown to me until April 2003 there was a file note dated 4 September 2002 which says

"In terms of disciplinary Jim thinks we should go through formal disciplinary process with legal advice and sack him. We may get done for unfair dismissal but that may be the cheapest option in the long run."

The file note accused me of not performing well educationally. Murphy’s letter of 14 January 2002 said it was Williams’ view that I was generally reasonably competent for my grade in medicine and my first month in surgery was signed as satisfactory.

Compare with "Watchdog urges suspensions rethink" BMA News 8 November 2003

"BMA council chairman James Johnson said: ‘Exclusion from practice can have a devastating effect on doctors and their families. Sometimes it is necessary but it is vital that, when it takes place, it is handled sensitively and speedily."

They took the view of guilty even if innocent. They were concerned about an allegation of a fraudulent entry to the United Examining Board exam. If they had simply discussed it I would have gone over exam fraud- the dispute at Sheffield and showed them the full story which culiminated in the following file note. “Professor Catto pointed out that there was no factual evidence that Mr. Varma had fraudulently gained entry to the UEB examination and therefore no grounds for the GMC to become involved at this stage”

Dr Sushant Varma.

The Pledge

2010-08-31T18:23:00.006+01:00

One hundred and seventy years ago, a lady who believed God had called her to be a nurse, made a Pledge. Her spoken words were:

I solemnly pledge myself before God and in the presence of this assembly, to pass my life in purity and to practice my profession faithfully. I will abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous, and will not take or knowingly administer any harmful drug. I will do all in my power to maintain and elevate the standard of my profession, and will hold in confidence all personal matters committed to my keeping and all family affairs coming to my knowledge in the practice of my calling. With loyalty will I endeavor to aid the physician in his work, and devote myself to the welfare of those committed to my care.

Her name was Florence Nightingale

We may have come far in the world of medicine, we may be able to prevent patients from dying who in years gone by would not have survived and we may have medicines that can take away the pain one might suffer when the closing of the day is nigh - but what happens when life is taken away by the living and not nature.

The policeman wears a badge that warns the criminal, he’s there to protect society; the doctor wears one that pledges to society the protection of its health. The Boy Scout wears a badge to tell the world he’s prepared; doctors do likewise. The school prefect wears a badge as a reminder that there’s a code of conduct that’s expected. The medical profession has adhered to a Code of Medical Ethics ever since the dawn of modern history. The doctor’s badge is his white coat, his stethoscope but the question some should now ask themselves is.

“What message is my badge sending these days”? “Does it still proudly proclaim that the health and dignity of patients will be my first concern”?

What makes a doctor or nurse stray from the very purpose they joined the profession and made their pledged to those who fall ill? Like Dr Harold Shipman, who found it easy to play God and Dr Barton, who likewise ended the lives of many without justification or logic? With Shipman we shall never know but not due to him ending his own life. He pleaded not guilty right unto his death - with the backing of his family and many patients who adored him. His only mistake was the forging of a will or he would still be playing God today.

In the case of the Gosport War Memorial Hospital Dr Logan, Dr Jane Barton, Dr Reid, Dr Lord, Sister Hamblin, Nurse Freda Shaw to name but a few should all be asking themselves if the dignity of the patients was their first concern. Or was it Diamorphine? With Dr Barton we may well discover her motives once she enters a criminal court.

But should we place all the blame on those who have strayed outside of their Pledge? I say we should not, because those who turned a blind eye are as much to blame for not listening to those who came forward with their suspicions and those who still continually try to convince the public all was correct and there is no case to answer.

Like Mr Max Millet who in 1991 should have conducted a thorough enquiry when nurses came forward with their concerns about Dr Barton’s introduction of Syringe Drivers, the use of Diamorphine on patients who where not in pain and the vast increase in deaths. If he had done so and brought in new regulations on the use of Diamorphine, what happened later at the GWMH would not be the concern it is today.

Mrs Evans, the 1991 Patient Care Manager whose blatant disbelief that Dr Barton and Sister Hamblin were allegedly ending the lives of innocent elderly patients prematurely, failed to conduct a full enquiry into the abnormal number of deaths at Redclyffe Annex following Dr Barton’s introduction of syringe drivers. Instead she instructed the nurses who raised their concerns to first speak to Dr Barton or Sister Hamblin should they remain unhappy with the administration of Diamorphine to patients who had no symptoms of pain. The very two who they were complaining about for using Diamorphine uncontrollably. Had Mrs Evans taken note of the concerns over Diamorphine and instructed the staff to follow the WHO Guide for the control of pain and anxiety, again the case now in question would not have happened and many innocent elderly patients would have died naturally and not prematurely. Passing the buck back on Mr Max Millet following one year of inappropriate discussions was cowardly because that is where it remained.

The Hampshire Constabulary who refused to take statements and conduct an investigation after closing the first case down. Not to take statements from the public, who were claiming their loved ones lives were allegedly ended prematurely by Dr Barton, was immorally corrupt and; more so since a jury found her guilty of causing a number of those deaths. As in the case of Dr Shipman when an undertaker took his suspicions to the Police over an increase in the number of deaths from the doctor’s surgery. Many came from just one street but the Police failed to investigate and the doctor continued his killing spree. But have the Police learnt any lessons? No, not at all, having stated the case against Dr Barton is now closed.

The Health Ombudsman who also said there were no cases to answer and still maintains that statement today even knowing Dr Barton was found guilty by a Coroner’s Inquest jury of causing the deaths of 3 patients. Evidence that there are laws for the public to adhere to but not for Dr Jane Barton.

Ms Jan Peach the Gosport War Memorial Hospital (GWMH) Service Manager who, after Dr Barton knew she could not continue her evil work, continually spoke so highly of the hospital and all the staff. Phrases like “The staff have been absolute stars through this, but they have lived through it since 1998, come to work every single day to give care to patients – but how much more can they take.

If there were an honest bone in Ms Peach’s body she would have accepted what the Commission of Health Improvement (CHI) discovered in 2002. How Dr Barton had administered 36,000mg of Diamorphine in 1998/1999 to patients in Daedalus and Dryad wards but only 3,500mg in 2000/2001 following complaints into her work. Surely Ms Peach was not strolling through the wards watching patients writhing in agony or in severe distress due to anxiety in 2000/2001 because the staff was not using Diamorphine? What was Florence Nightingale’s Pledge? “I will abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous, and will not take or knowingly administer any harmful drug". How prejudicious can one get Ms Peach?

Medical Experts who were discovered to have distorted the truth to assist Dr Barton’s defense. Like Pro Black at the Coroner’s Inquest stating how he considered that there was no negligence or culpability and that the administration of the medicines represented good palliative care. When he knew only too well that patients were being placed on the terminal pathway as they sat in bed pain free and only in rehabilitation. Also knowing that Dr Barton had indicated she specifically requested for a Fentanyl Patch to remain on a opiate naïve patient while she administered four 4 X overdoses of opiates. A Patch containing the equivalent of 135mg of Morphine that should have been removed 12 hours before administering any alternative medicine. Also Dr Dudley whose opinion was proven to contain lies that he knew he was committing.

Dr Jane Barton’s brother Professor Christopher Bulstrode who failed to inform the public of his relationship while being employed as a member of the GMC.

Professor Karlo Sikora who was caught lying about his CV yet agreed to assist in the defense of Dr Jane Barton knowing that his expertise was in Palliative Care and patients dying of cancer. When only one patient at the GWMH had cancer and the hospital was for rehabilitation only.

Care worker Linda Baldacchino who said. “Its been so painful’. ‘It’s been heart breaking to read such bad reports” “It’s a lovely place to work, I would put my mother in here any day”.

I do not know if it is just ignorance of the truth or if it is true that the NHS is a body that stands together no matter what. Read the CHI report Ms Baldacchino.

Mr Bradley the Inquest Coroner who blatantly withheld vital evidence from a Jury who still found Dr Barton guilty of causing the death of patients. His manipulation of the proceedings was criminally bias towards the defense and should have been investigated but knowing who it concerned nothing was done. He even had the audacity to add to the Jury’s findings if Dr Barton had acted therapeutically. Even knowing an opiate naïve patient who was sitting happily awaiting her daughter’s arrival, was put on the terminal pathway with the administration of a Fentanyl Patch equivalent to 135mg of morphine and the next day administered four 4 X overdoses of opiates. Therapeutic Mr Bradley? It means to heal, to cure. Something that is remedial, restorative and beneficial. There is nothing beneficial about involuntary euthanasia and I therefore assume English was not your best subject as school. So what is your badge saying now Mr Bradley?

Yes there are so many more but I end with the infamous ‘Duck House’ M.P. Peter Viggers who was continually in the media condemning the relations fighting for justice of loved ones lost. He ranted of the dedication Dr Barton had for her patient’s wellbeing. Though strange as it may seem, since a jury found her guilty of causing premature deaths he has not been heard of. Even so his Pledge against dishonesty meant very little to him, likewise his praise of Alvestoke’s Princess of Darkness.

How sad it is to take one’s mind back 170yrs when honesty and ethical values were a part of life. When a young girl in her early 20’s thought she had really been chosen by God to nurse the sick and to pledge that she ‘will abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous, and will not take or knowingly administer any harmful drug’.

As we evolve on this wonderful blue planet there will always be those who have no respect for life and lives of the innocent cut short but normally the culprits are brought to justice. Yet in the case of Dr Jane Barton the Police, Health Ombudsman, CPS, GMC, CHRE, NHS together with all bodies related to it, the Minister of Heath and the Coalition Government no one is interested in ‘Justice.’

They have all made their pledges when they took office and they all wear their badges, so is it time to ask oneself. “What message is my badge sending these days”?

I think so, I really do.

Richard Kimble

David Nicholson Says "No" to Whistleblower involvement

2010-08-30T12:49:00.004+01:00

Any request made to David Nicholson

The Department of Health recently crowed about their undying love for whistleblowers. The MDDUS reported the matter very well.

Lansley was practically gushing when he unveiled his new plan to support whistleblowers. The problem with Andrew Lansley and his team is that he failed to tell the world that his concept of policy making had one flaw. This flaw is essentially that no whistleblower from the past, present or the future will be included in the consultation that will eventually develop the relevant policies.

David Nicholson, head poncho of the NHS tells us this in black and white. I asked David and the Department of Health to meet with a number of high profile whistleblowers including Steve Bolsin. David responded as follows

"As Sir David's previous reply explained, the Department is committed to strengthening the whistleblowing procedure and is working with NHS staff to provide an independent authority to whom they can turn if their concerns are not fully addressed."I note your request for a meeting, but this work will be led by policy officials rather than the Chief Executive's office and so we do not believe that a meeting would be beneficial at this time". [ 25th August 2010]"

This in polite terms means that the Department of Health has no interest in meeting whistleblowers at this time. It is also notable that no high profile whistleblower has been invited to the Mid Staffordshire Inquiry. This tells us that the current coalition government purports to listen to the public but in reality will do whatever they see by fit using their own set of private advisers. In the case of Whistleblowing, it will no doubt be the failures formally known as the British Medical Association, the trade union that has failed endless whistleblowers over the years. One favourite of the coalition government is the common purpose driven, freemasonic, Virgin sponsored Patient Association.

It is also notable that Andrew Lansley's PA Jenny Parsons has recently blocked emails from a health campaign group [ NHS Reform Group]. This kind of unprofessional behaviour leads us to question the integrity of the current coalition government who clearly believe in elitism and creating policy by cherry picking their select group of "chosen ones". It is evident that than average members of the public who do not mix with the rich and famous are cleverly marginalised or provided lip service. This is similar to the Citizen Juries used by Nu Labour. This is called basing policy on selective data [ as opposed to using a broad brush approach and including a wider spectrum of people]. In scientific terms it would be research fraud.

At present, the Coalition government appears to be showing its true colours. They appear to be no better than New Labour when it comes to cosmetics. Nicholson is superb at applying lipstick and endless amount of foundation. He should though remember that the people carry the votes. It is not simply the elite in society that hold the cards to the next general election.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Rewarding Whistleblowers by Phil Hammond
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 12:46:55 +0100
From: Rita Pal
To: David.Nicholson@dh.gsi.gov.uk,

Dear Mr Nicholson,

I have enclosed an excellent piece by Dr Phil Hammond. You were asked to support http://www.steve-bolsin.com [ see http://www.steve-bolsin.com/2010/07/sir-david-nicholson-chief-executive-nhs.html] . Apparently, you have yet to responded to them. This kind of delay in response is unlike you.

As I am sending this email to multiple newsgroups who are interested in your "cosmetic" support for whistleblowers, I felt we needed to quote your refusal to meet Steve Bolsin, myself and numerous other senior whistleblowers who are of the view that your policies are inadequate. Your email stated "As Sir David's previous reply explained, the Department is committed to strengthening the whistleblowing procedure and is working with NHS staff to provide an independent authority to whom they can turn if their concerns are not fully addressed. I note your request for a meeting, but this work will be led by policy officials rather than the Chief Executive's office and so we do not believe that a meeting would be beneficial at this time". [ 25th August 2010]". This conflicts with the government's view of "listening to the public". I conclude that your department wishes to unilaterally develop policies by purposefully marginalising whistleblowers from any policy related consultation. You will appreciate that NHS Staff who have never whistleblown will not be aware of the pitfalls of the current system.

What is said to the media by the Department of Health is clearly not what is done. I note your refusal to pass my request to the Health Select Committee. This shows us all that you are reluctant to instigate a review of problems that Whistleblowers have faced since the Bristol Inquiry. A more logical and rational way of developing policy related to whistleblowers would be to first instigate a consultation and review of whistleblowing by the Health Select Committee then determine what policies may work effectively. The Department of Health has clearly failed in its job so far. There is no evidence that it will ever succeed in the future unless it follows an evidence based approach.

There is no requirement to respond since your last dismissive email stated that the rest of my concerns would be sent to "Customer Service". I am merely interested in confirmation that you have

1. Read the document below
2. That you have received this email safely.

Many thanks

Dr Rita Pal

Rewarding Whistleblowers

Well done Channel 4 News and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism for their exposure of the widespread use of taxpayers’ money to silence NHS whistleblowers (Ch 4 news, 2.8.10). Many employment contracts still have gagging clauses and most doctors who invoke the Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA) to raise concerns about unsafe or fraudulent practice reach a settlement with their employer to prevent concerns being made public. Superficially, this smells of whistleblowers bottling it and taking the money, but when you look at the experience of those who refuse to be silenced, there’s no great incentive to do the right thing.

The NHS’s most famous whistleblower, Dr (now Professor) Stephen Bolsin, was praised in Parliament for raising concerns about standards of child heart surgery in Bristol nearly 20 years ago, and his actions were fully vindicated by a Public Inquiry. Yet he became unemployable in the NHS and relocated to Australia, where he continued his excellent work in monitoring clinical outcomes. Had Bolsin remained in the NHS, it is inconceivable that small units would have been allowed to continue operating and the Oxford heart scandal would have been avoided (Eye last).

If Andrew Lansley is genuine in his desire to support whistleblowers, he should consider formal recognition of Bolsin’s bravery. The Mid Staffs inquiry will doubtless show that staff were either too afraid to blow the whistle, or too easily silenced, despite the many avoidable deaths occurring around them. NHS whistleblowers are vulnerable and isolated, and have few role models. The public recognition of Bolsin’s legacy would go some way to making it acceptable to speak up.

For whistleblowers who want to go the distance, the best chance of being heard is to go to court. In the UK, any payouts tend to be swallowed up by legal expenses and loss of earnings. But in the US, whistleblowers are rewarded handsomely if they help the government bring a successful case. In May, the New England Journal of Medicine followed up 26 successful whistleblowers from the pharmaceutical industry 2. On average each received $3 million for speaking up, with the range going from $100,000 to $42 million. Last September, Pfizer paid $2.3 billion to settle allegations that they illegally marketed a painkiller, Bextra, which has now been withdrawn. A proportion of the settlement was divided between the 6 whistleblowers.

Whistleblowers are rarely motivated by money, and nearly all try to ‘go through the correct channels’ first before going public. And even a large payout is scant consolation for the emotional exhaustion and stress of speaking out. In May, an employment tribunal found that John Watkinson, a former chief executive of the Royal Cornwall NHS Trust, was sacked for blowing the whistle on the failure of the Trust and Strategic Health Authority to consult the public adequately before moving cancer services. An independent review has now agreed that public consultation was inadequate, but the Trust is appealing against the tribunal findings. They accept that Watkinson was unfairly dismissed but challenge that he was a whistleblower, wary off the unlimited damages that are supposed to be awarded to sacked whistleblowers under PIDA. In the meantime, Watkinson remains unemployed – and like Bolsin, probably unemployable in the NHS.

As well as publically recognizing whistleblowers, Lansley needs to place a statutory duty on all NHS employers to report all serious concerns about patient safety or fraud to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and Monitor for investigation and publication. Gagging clauses, and attempts to buy the silence of public sector workers raising genuine concerns in the public interest, must be outlawed. Whether the CQC and Monitor have the independence, expertise and resources to deal with all the NHS’s dirty secrets remains to be seen, but the practice of damage limitation, either by paying off staff or ordering secret ‘independent’ inquiries that never see the light of day, must end.

1 www.steve-bolsin.com/

2 www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsr0912039

Mr James Johnson's Room Full of Complaints. The Fall From Grace

2010-08-29T05:15:00.008+01:00

Halton Hospital HR Dealing with Johnson's Multiple Complaints

Life is not as peachy as it used to be for Mr James Johnson. The General Medical Council are about to strip him down, frisk him and conduct an inquisition. This is rather entertaining for many sectors of the community of doctors. In memory to his once glorious position with the high ranking despots in medicopolitics, we will be running a series on his role in the fiasco known to all as Modernising Medical Careers, his disastrous treatment of junior doctor Dr Sushant Varma and of course his GMC hearing. It should be noted that Mr James Johnson was also an ex BMA poncho. Remedy UK has lots of interesting tit bits on their website

"MPs also took the opportunity to quiz Dame Carol about the controversial letter that she co-authored with the then-BMA chairman Mr James Johnson. BMA council members forced Mr Johnson from his post following the letter’s publication in The Times"

For now, it is enough to present the GMC's public allegation list for one Jimmy Johnson. To provide further amusment, many may wish to read his piece on GMC and Self Regulation listed here. For those in the know who read medicopolitics, we should ask ourselves why the Medical Director and various colleagues did nothing to raise the alarm long ago. It should be noted that Johnson had set up tent with his fellow Halton colleagues who are currently being strung up by the GMC on various charges. The first one his the infamous Gerry Murphy and the second one is the even more infamous Dr Khaleeli. The irony here is that none of these doctors have had an alert letter issues nor have they been suspended.

Johnson no longer holds the respected position of untouchable rogue to the medical fraternity. He no longer sits on the best golden toilets at BMA house. The fall from grace and the Johnson meltdown now commences. Most sectors of hard working doctors will congratulate the GMC for their excellent work in bringing Jimmy Johnson to their inquisition.

Planned dates: 20 September to 26 November 2010
St James’s Buildings, 79 Oxford Street, Manchester, M1 6FQ

The Fitness to Practise Panel will meet at St James’s Buildings, 79 Oxford Street, Manchester, M1 6FQ to consider a new case of impairment by reason of deficient professional performance and misconduct.

Dr James North Johnson
GMC Reference Number: 1461219

Area of practice: Cheshire

The Panel will inquire into the allegation that between June 2006 and January 2008 Dr James Johnson performed a number of operations on patients and did not make the patients aware of the potential risks and benefits of surgery. It is also alleged some of the operations were not surgically appropriate, in the patients’ interests or performed correctly.

It is also alleged Dr Johnson failed to involve himself properly in patients’ post-operative care. He failed to communicate appropriately with his colleagues and patients and, on one occasion in January 2008, shouted at a patient and staff assisting him.

In accordance with Rule 41(2) of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004, the Panel may decide to exclude the public from the proceedings or any part of the proceedings, where they consider that the circumstances of the case outweigh the public interest in holding the hearing in public.

Bloodgate. Mary O' Rourke's collection of sick doctors

2010-08-27T22:23:00.004+01:00

Daily Mail

Mary O Rourke is a barrister. She is quite a good barrister. She does get a bit hot and bothered about my links to Arpad Toth [ of R v GMC Ex Parte Toth]. She was last caught whining to Timothy Straker about how we apparently work together. It should be clarified that my interest in Arpad Toth is purely related to his good looks and masculinity. What more can I say :).

Her main victories are the David Southall case and Mahfouz. There is a amusing side to Mary. She has a accessory collection of "sick doctors". I wrote about Mary sometime ago. Her first doctor to run the sick doctors defence was David Jarman - who ran the infamous " anxiety related to the GMC" in order to jump off the Register before he could be taken off. She then moved onto run this defence for Dr Al-Zayyat of the Baby P affair. Now, she is running the identical defence for yet another doctor. The Bloodgate scandal is known to everyone. Anyhow, there are a lot of of people using depression as a excuse for their behaviour :).

We shouldn't mention that Mary O' Rourke asked Dr Sushant Varma to run the sick doctors defence as she felt it was the only way out for him.

Visit to 10 Downing Street

2010-08-25T01:08:00.007+01:00

National Patient Groups 'Walk the Talk' about the National Health Shame and Cordially invite Andrew Lansley the Health Secretary to meet 1st September, 2010.

Mrs. Ann Reeves of the Gosport War Memorial Hospital Action Group www.gosportwarmemorialcoverup.spruz.com along with other members of her group will join forces with members of the NHS Reform Group and the NHS Complaints Exposed Group and present a petition " ELSIE'S LAW" and relevant papers to the Prime Minister at 10 Downing Street.

The 'Walk the Talk' will commence at the Law Courts in Aldwych, London at 12.noon 1st September, the silent protest will continue down the Strand, turn into Whitehall and proceed to Downing Street.

Mrs. Ann Reeves and her supporters from the Gosport War Memorial Hospital campaign will hand in a petition at 2.00p.m. asking for 'Elsie's Law' to be put in place to regulate the "Liverpool Care Pathway" in order to stop Drs and Nurses using the LCP for 'involuntary euthansia" :

Then Members of the NHS Reform Group www.nhsreformgroup.com and NHS Complaints Exposed Group www.nhsconmplaintsexposed.co.uk will hand in papers at 2.15p.m.

The date of this 'Walk the Talk' is significant to Mrs. Reeves and her continued Campaign for Justice for her Mother, in the fact that on this VERY day 1st September Hitlers' EUTHANASIA DECREE was drafted in 1939 AND it is the same date as when Harold Shipman the notorious euthanizing Dr. was charged with Murder in 1998. Mrs. Reeves is demanding on this same day the 1st September that Dr. Jane Barton is brought justice.

Mrs. Reeves says "My mother was NOT dying. Dr. Barton administered drugs without justification or logic" as proven by a Jury at the Portsmouth Inquest.

Mr.Miguel Cubells founding member of the NHS Reform Group says "We seek openness, transparency and justice instead of the current culture of denial. Perhaps only then can the NHS begin to 'Learn Lessons' and improve their systems across the board. We also want genuine support for NHS whistleblowers who are frequently labelled as 'troublemakers' despite the evidence to the contrary. They are subjected to hate campaigns, ostracized, criminalised, suspended and referred to Regulatory Bodies that behave like an insightless totalitarian regime.

Mrs. Janet Brooks member of NHS Complaints Exposed says "when the NHS make a serious mistake, they use every trick in the book to cover up failings. We are finding that more and more NHS Hospitals are making mistakes due to staff being inadequately trained and staffing levels being too low, but when a complaint is lodge, one finds the whole system is in denial and the complainant is damned".