Safety Concerns Closures: Evidence Verification and Expertise matters

by Paediatric NHS Whistleblower

Safety Concerns Closures: Evidence Verification and Expertise matters

by Paediatric NHS Whistleblower
Paediatric NHS Whistleblower
Case Owner
I need to remain anonymous at this stage. This campaign has been initiated with legal oversight and due to the gravity and the persistence of the core issues
73
days to go
£3,316
donated of £20,000 target from 20 pledges
Donate now
Paediatric NHS Whistleblower
Case Owner
I need to remain anonymous at this stage. This campaign has been initiated with legal oversight and due to the gravity and the persistence of the core issues
Donate now

Your donation will be returned if the campaign does not reach its initial target

Children's Safety Concerns Closures: How and Who by? It matters

Summary:

A children’s doctor raised serious safety and compliance concerns.

She believes several have been closed without proper verification, specialist expertise or accurate information. This has occurred at multiple levels.

This matters because safety issues may recur, and patients may not know the truth about concerns and their closure.

Funds are needed to seek expert reviews and responsible escalation to the GMC and/or police with formal legal support


What Has Gone Wrong

A specialist children’s doctor raised serious concerns about patient safety, consent, information and procedural compliance through appropriate channels, including the GMC. She also reported how concerns were being closed, and why those were not appropriate closures.

She expected the concerns to be assessed with relevant clinical expertise and proper analysis. Her experience was not consistent with that. In the GMC process, following further enquiry, documentary information indicates that no clinical expertise was applied. No verification of notes has been conducted.

The doctor sought formal advice and, with additional support from an experienced clinician, raised issues for further consideration to the GMC. Several months later, she still awaits a definitive decision. Further formal representations are therefore necessary and unavoidable. 

The doctor has received permission to make submissions to the relevant authorities, including the police with sensitive information. This needs to be delivered with due scrutiny and legal input. We cannot share the confidential concern details.

It appears that several children’s concerns have been affected by such an approach over several years in one centre. 



Why This Matters


Patients and families do not always know when care may have been inadequate. They may not know that concerns were raised about their care, or how they were addressed. Any closure or incorrect information without adequate verification may deny them the truth.

This matters especially in children’s care, where patients may be too young or vulnerable to identify concerns themselves. Safety issues may also recur when the core issues remain unaddressed. The core issues leading to that may remain unaddressed. And such culture may affect training too.

Closure decisions by authorities can carry significant weight. Decisions may not clarify how the conclusions were reached.

They may give the impression that the evidence was fully tested and that processes appropriate for the gravity of concerns were followed. 

Such decisions may also affect appraisal, revalidation and future concern-raising. Doctors raising concerns about such an approach or seeking information may be seen as difficult rather than heard and influence other processes.

This is why proper scrutiny matters now. There is no mechanism to support a whistleblower, despite the relevance of such processes to public safety



What We Are Trying to Achieve

  • The aim is to seek appropriately considered responses from the authorities with a focus on evidence-based concern management 

  • Ensure that the children's rights to information and safety are protected

  • Ensure that we minimise future risks to more patients through such a culture.

  • Raise awareness about the challenges of raising interrelated regulatory, governance and compliance issues through the current systems


Next Legal Steps

  • Further communications with the GMC seeking expert-led review.
  • Legal advice for a Judicial Review.
  • Possible submissions to the police, with advice.
  • Legal representations related to the use of patient information for advice.
  • Continued lawful public-interest concern-raising and representations

How Much We Are Raising and Why

We are seeking £20,000 to cover legal and/or expert costs required for the initial preparations. The doctor has self-funded the costs so far. But now needs help.

Further expenses revision would be shared should a judicial  review become necessary

Evidence-based concern closure matters.

Every contribution helps.


Recent contributions