Search the hub

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) awarded researchers from The Open University (OU), Manchester Metropolitan University, the Universities of Oxford, Glasgow and Edinburgh more than £141,000 to expand their world-first study of witnesses’ experience of giving evidence during health and social care workers’ professional conduct hearings. The project, Witness to harm, holding to account: Improving patient, family and colleague witnesses’ experiences of Fitness to Practise proceedings, mainly focuses on cases where there are allegations of harm. This focus should help regulators and employers identify potential improvements to support witnesses whose role in giving evidence is crucial to a fair hearing. Since September 2021, the project has explored the experiences of witnesses involved in Fitness to Practise (FtP) proceedings with UK health and social care regulators. It aims to determine what support witnesses expect, what they receive and what they need. The researchers are exploring current best practice and potential improvements to how the public engages with FtP processes to develop workable recommendations, videos and other support resources for the public and professional bodies. Annie Sorbie, Lecturer in Law (Medical Law and Ethics) at Edinburgh Law School and a co-investigator on the project said: “The provision of written and oral evidence by witnesses is a crucial part of the fitness to practise process. This helps to ensure that when regulators make decisions about whether health and care professionals are fit to practise, these are fair, timely and protect the public. Our study will provide novel insights into the experiences of witnesses and use these findings to create resources and guidance that enable people to be better supported when they provide evidence. I will be producing a report comparing the systems of regulation of the devolved Scottish government and the public’s involvement in professional regulation. I am delighted to work on this NIHR-funded project with colleagues across the UK and from a range of disciplinary backgrounds.” For more information or to get involved with the Witness to harm, holding to account project, please email Louise Wallace ([email protected]) or Amy Clow ([email protected]).

In December 2022, the All Party Parliamentary (APPG) for Whistleblowing heard evidence on the state of the NHS following the recent report on the avoidable deaths and life changing injuries caused to mothers and babies at the East Kent Trust. The culture at this hospital was described as one where “everyone knew the problems” and where whistleblowers were “thrown to the lions”. A culture attributed to 45 of the 65 baby deaths reviewed.  This blog first appeared on the Whistleblowers UK website in December 2022. In 2015 the Government introduced a Freedom to Speak Up Guardian and a system of Local Speak Up Guardians in response to the recommendations made by Sir Robert Frances following the scandal at Mid Staffordshire. From the outset, this system has attracted significant criticism and the APPG has heard from whistleblowers who have been failed by local guardians sharing their experiences that included the disclosure of their identity to hospital management and boards – resulting in retaliation. The APPG has also heard from Local Guardians who were not supported and themselves the target of retaliation after supporting whistleblowers. Local Guardians in East Kent were described as, “dishonest” and that the Guardian system had failed in every case that had been investigated throughout the UK. Further evidence was provided of a tick box approach to the Duty of Candour introduced by the former Secretary of State for Health. The APPG was told that both the Guardian and Duty of Candour systems are beyond resurrection and that across the NHS there is no ownership of problems. All attempts to encourage speaking up have been hindered by a failure to introduce an effective and safe whistleblowing regime across the NHS, resulting in the NHS being unsafe for whistleblowers, making it unsafe for patients. The APPG were told that, in over 50 years of investigation experience, little has changed, and that “these issues are not new, nor are they confined to a small number of rogue hospitals”. That league table results are inaccurate because of a flawed regulatory system with no ownership of the problems and where the regulators are “caught up in the fraud”. The APPG was provided with a series of examples of what were described as “deep seated problems” relating to teamwork and culture, which resulted in the failure to join up clinical and ethical responsibilities. These responsibilities were described as being on separate tracks and a failure by the regulatory regime to identify or report on the impact of this has significant consequences for patients, whistleblowers and the future of the NHS, as demonstrated by the case of the Bristol Children’s Heart scandal brought to light by Dr Steve Bolsin 30 years ago. Dr Bolsin was shunned for exposing the failures that resulted in the death of so many babies because funding the unit was more of a priority that the lives of the babies (he has since made a successful career in Australia). In every case, a failure to listen to whistleblowers, followed by attempts to discredit the whistleblowers, and a deliberate cover up has proved in many cases fatal for patients. What has been proved time and time again is that The Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA) has made little or no difference to this failure to protect patients or whistleblowers or to learn and improve our NHS. Evidence provided to the APPG is of a lack of system-wide action and an absence of commitment to speaking up beyond excellent PR. It is unclear who, if anyone, is responsible for the monitoring and reporting on recommendations contained in investigation reports. In addition, there is no coherent process for triggering high-level independent reviews of major patient safety failings. This causes confusion, suffering and leads to missed opportunities. Mary Robinson MP, chair of the APPG for Whistleblowing, said: “We have a duty to support and protect whistleblowers because without them we cannot prevent more deaths like those in East Kent. My APPG is committed to making whistleblowing safe and will continue to press the Government to introduce the Whistleblowing Bill which will incentivise and normalise speaking up. I encourage everyone to write to their MPs and ask them to join the APPG and support the Whistleblowing Bill.” The Right Hon. Baroness Susan Kramer, said: “Doing nothing is not an option that we can afford. It’s time to put an end to ‘tick box culture’ and turning a blind eye to whistleblowers. Whistleblowing law must be meaningful, easily understandable and enforceable. The Whistleblowing Bill will do this and in doing so will save lives and protect our NHS.” Wendy Morden MP, member of the APPG for Whistleblowing, said: “I hear about problems when I am at the hairdresser because people are too afraid to speak up in their place of work. The Office of the Whistleblower will be the catalyst for meaningful change.” Dr Bill Kirkup, author of Reading the Signals Report, said: “I support the proposals set out in the Whistleblowing Bill because the NHS urgently needs an effective early warning system.”

This code sets out a common overarching framework for the corporate governance of trusts, reflecting developments in UK corporate governance and the development of integrated care systems.  Key points Corporate governance is the means by which boards lead and direct their organisations so that decision-making is effective, risk is managed and the right outcomes are delivered. In the NHS this means delivering safe, effective services in a caring and compassionate environment while collaborating through system and place-based partnerships and provider collaboratives to integrate care. Best practice is detailed in the following sections: Board leadership and purpose, Division of responsibilities, Composition, succession and evaluation, Audit, risk, and internal control, and Remuneration. Action required Trusts must comply with each of the provisions of the code or, where appropriate, explain in each case why the trust has departed from the code.