Hinchingbrooke fiasco exposes bad case of double standards

Hinchingbrooke fiasco exposes bad case of double standards

The Hinchingbrooke fiasco has exposed the extraordinary double standards of many commentators on the NHS. Whilst Mid Staffs brought a number of inquiries into the poor care on some wards, including an inquiry devoted to the system (which was politically motivated), the exposure of poor care at Hinchingbrooke, the first privately-run NHS hospital, has brought calls for an inquiry not into the poor care, but into the report itself!

The Daily Mail, which has been quick to monster those who have challenged elements of the press narrative about Mid Staffs, is now an emphatic denialist about poor care at Hinchingbrooke. It trumpets "evidence", which is actually merely a series of inferences and suppositions. Far from being "shocking evidence" of a stitch-up, it's simply shocking that the DM will make such a bold assertion on so little evidence.

So many patients were happy with their care at Hinchingbrooke. The same was true at Mid Staffs. 

Some indicators show that care was good at Hinchingbrooke. The same was true at Mid Staffs.

The DM claims that the report produced was influenced by political considerations. The same is contended about Mid Staffs.

It seems that the only difference is that Hinchingbrooke was run by the private sector, and therefore the DM believes that those opposed to privatization were determined to see it damned. Many have come to the opposite conclusion about Mid Staffs, that those with a pro-privatization agenda were determined to use the hospital to achieve their ends. Both may be right. It's hard to see why the DM can be so emphatic that Hinchingbrooke was a stitch-up, and Mid Staffs wasn't.

The most interesting question is whether or not Julie Bailey or James Titcombe will attack the denialists? Or is that only when it's Mid Staffs or Morecambe Bay? Or when it's a chance to attack Andy Burnham?

National Patient Safety Adviser battening down the hatches?

I don't like to indulge in tittle-tattle, but as all complainants and whistleblowers know, informal communication networks sometimes have a great deal more of the truth than the formal ones. So it seems somewhat paradoxical that apparently trenchant critics of the system who experienced obstruction are now apparently the worst culprits!
James Titcombe, the National Patient Safety Adviser at the CQC, is incredibly unpopular if the complaints I hear about him are anything to go by. He has blocked a large number of relatives and complainants who have criticized him for doing nothing, despite promises to the contrary. In fact, his behaviour seems like exactly the sort of behaviour he himself complained of.
He and other campaigners that have all had the patronage of the current government have been amazingly quiet about the Hinchingbrooke disaster, preferring to post about Andy Burnham. Rather inappropriate now that Jeremy Hunt must be held responsible for the current state of the NHS.

Fallout from Hinchingbrooke fiasco

Fallout from Hinchingbrooke fiasco

Of course it is not a valid conclusion from the failure of one hospital that privatization in the NHS is doomed to failure. The fawning over the experiment at Hinchingbrooke was always premature. Even now, the Daily Mail is resorting to conspiracy theories to explain the CQC report:

"at least one of the 35 inspectors is a member of campaign group Keep Our NHS Public and may have been unfairly critical."

Given the number of political appointees in the CQC, including a new chair who had previously Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party and a mentally ill incompetent saved from sacking by the personal intervention of Jeremy Hunt himself, it seems unlikely that the CQC would have a team opposed to the Conservative agenda of privatizing the NHS. The Daily Mail seldom acknowledges mistakes however; it has never accepted it was wrong about MMR, for example.

Cure the NHS, the lobbying group started with the help of funding from Bill Cash Conservative MP, has been curiously quiet. We are told that they receive complaints from all over the country about poor care. It seems odd that Hinchingbrooke Hospital would be the exception. Either CTNHS are not in touch with the state of the NHS after all, or they have been covering up the inadequacies of Hinchingbrooke Hospital. They would only have to read the newspapers after all to find a case quite similar to that of Gillian Astbury.

How long will it be before Cure the NHS comment? After all, Julie Bailey gave this ringing endorsement of Hinchingbrooke Hospital, also in the Mail:
"What this shows is the potential of allowing those on the frontline to lead, as Circle do.
The potential is there within the NHS – the majority of people wouldn’t care who provides their services as long as it was safe."
Will they call for a public inquiry into care that seems to be at least as poor as that in Mid Staffs? All the criteria that were used to justify calls for a statutory public inquiry into Mid Staffs are also fulfilled for Hinchingbrooke Hospital. So those who called for a public inquiry into Mid Staffs that don't call for the same for Hinchingbrooke are guilty of rank hypocrisy.

Uses and abuses of the GMC

Uses and abuses of the GMC

The recent furore over the treatment of Mr Meirion Thomas has highlighted the fact that  a GMC referral can be a weapon in a personal dispute (just like clinical incident forms, for example). Interesting that the GMC was emphatic that it was not going to get involved in such matters, because "Meirion Thomas had a right to speak freely" according to the Daily Mail.

This statement seems at odds with previous decisions of the GMC. For example, it appealed the High Court decision in Meadow v GMC that it was for the courts to decide what the standards for providing expert evidence should be. 

Further, its apparent swift rejection of the complaints about Mr Thomas may seem surprising, given that his comments were widely seen as unreasonable and wrongly denigrating professional colleagues, contrary to GMC guidance in Good Medical Practice:

  35. You must work collaboratively with colleagues, respecting their skills and contributions.

  36. You must treat colleagues fairly and with respect.

  37. You must be aware of how your behaviour may influence others within and outside the team.

Of course, the GMC has changed its interpretation of intraprofessional duties of respect to allow the raising of concerns (a change which is long overdue). It seems to be stretching the definition of whistle blowing beyond endurance to describe Mr Thomas's diatribes as bona fide whistle blowing. 

Whistleblower - the tag that covers a multitude of sins!

Whistleblower - the tag that covers a multitude of sins!

I had an interesting conversation on Twitter with an NHS whistleblower who was quite adamant that the vast majority of whistleblowers are genuine. Of course that distinction hinges on your definition of a genuine whistleblower. For me, a genuine whistleblower is not motivated by grievance, but altruism. In fact, the source this whistleblower directed me to confirmed that the majority of whistleblowers are motivated by grievance.

It seems that this is the justification a la mode - dinosaur Mr Meirion Thomas has now swathed himself in the cloak of whistle blower-hood, according to the Spectator and the Daily Mail.

It may seem a bizarre argument to proclaim the right to free speech whilst monstering those who have exercise their free speech in response to Mr Thomas...well, let's face it, it is! Some of the wilder calls for action against Mr Thomas can be debated certainly, but it has always been a matter of professional etiquette to only make reasonable comments about professional colleagues. 

Mr Thomas was referred to the GMC, but the GMC promptly threw the case out. Some might be surprised at this unusual demonstration of common sense by the GMC. In fact it has been pointed out this position contradicts GMC guidance on social media, however misguided that is.

Sometimes someone gets flak not because they're a whistleblower, but because they're a "T****"!

(as per printed in the Daily Mail: the actual word used is a mystery - what expletives begin with T and have 5 letters?)