The Socialist Party has proudly supported the campaign to get Cardiologist Dr Raj Mattu re-instated. In the days before Walsgrave Hospital became a PFI scheme Dr Mattu raised the risk of too many patients being put in wards without adequate resuscitation and support facilities. Our party clearly saw this as victimisation of an honest senior medic who was "taken down" in advance of the inevitable pressure to increase the “throughput" of patients in what is now a sub regional PFI hospital.
The then hospital authorities saw the danger to their PFI plans from senior medical staff and sought to remove Dr Mattu to also scare other senior staff with concerns. A massive amount of public money was expended in keeping Dr Mattu suspended for years. Thanks to an unswerving public campaign he was re-instated and any trumped up complaints of alleged "bullying" wiped away by the General Medical Council.
But you can't just put a cardiologist back to work, they have to be re-skilled and one key area of Dr Mattu's work is research. Although offered re-skilling in other areas, research was not included, even though that is why Dr Mattu was employed in the first place and in a hospital that prides itself on "leading edge" research and is seeking "foundation status". Dr Mattu is now again suspended after expressing concerns about this.
I, as a health scrutiny board member wanted clear answers at the meeting where councillors get to question health chiefs. My question was denied. The grounds were that my question related to an individual's employment.
These proceedings have cost the taxpayer needless millions and sometimes "rules" put forward to allegedly defend an individual are actually used to cover up the flaws of a big organisation - watch this space and read the links below for further news....Oh and by the way, the Scrutiny Chair was not keen on questions about hospital parking either. I was going to ask how the PFI mortgage plus various "facilities management " charges would be paid if the UHCW Trust was made to provide free car parking from a hypocritical New Labour government that fully supported PFI at Walsgrave. Well...I'm sure it will come out in the wash and that the angry people of our city will ensure that "Chilcott Whitewash" is not the preferred detergent in this case!
Councillor Rob Windsor
Follow the links below to see how the Coventry media have covered this story.
Â
I believe this is another example of 'Medical and Organized Mobbing' which can clearly be seen in the following link.
Â
http://www.doctors4justice.net/2010/04/organised-mobbing-british-oppressive.html
Â
GMC itself has recognized the obstacles of raising concerns,
Â
http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/raising_concerns.asp
 Obstacles to reporting
1.4. You may be reluctant to report concerns for a variety of reasons including, for example because you fear that this may cause problems for colleagues, adversely affect working relationships, have a negative impact on your career or result in a complaint about you. If you are hesitating about reporting a concern for these reasons, you should bear in mind that:
your duty to put patients' interests first and act to protect them must override personal and professional loyalties
Â
Raising a concern
Â
8. Be clear, honest and objective about the reason for your concern. Acknowledge any personal grievance that may arise from the situation, but focus on the issue of patient safety.'
Â
and advise us to face any complaint which may arise as a consequence of raising concern/s.
Â
- Who will dare to speak if he ends up losing his job and good reputation and who will employ a doctor with unfounded allegations showing up in his CRB disclosure.
Â
 I suggest,
1. The Government must make appropriate amendments in the legislation to remove unfounded allegations from the enhanced CRB disclosure under 'OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATON' section. The Chief Police Officer should be given clear directions that if a whistlebower is alleged of any criminal offence and produces evidence of victimization in the form of concerns raised on poor quality of services in the NHS (emails/notes of conversation/letters etc during interview under caution or afterwards) and subsequently charged, the information must not appear on the CRB nor if the charges are dropped or lead to no conviction or caution.
2 . The GMC must update its guidelines on Good Medical Practice especially 'working in a team and communication skills' These are vague and any Trust will easily use it against whistlelowers to frame them. Furthermore the 360 degree feedback (multi-source) clause should be removed from the guidelines in Appraisal as it is, by and large, an unnecessary paperwork and open to abuse.
3. Whistleblowers should have option to choose alternate referees if after whistleblowing, the consultant/Trust gives them bad references particularly on poor communication skills, difficulty working in a multi-disciplinary team.
4. The recommendation made in the following link should be considered.
http://www.doctors4justice.net/2010/03/whistleblowing-in-uk-problems-and.html
5. Vetting and Barring Scheme (VBS) (currently being remodelled)
http://www.crb.homeoffice.gov.uk/media/news/vetting_and_barring_scheme_reg.aspx
must address the CRB dislosure issue especially the disclosure of unfounded allegations.
Trusts will almost always try to ruin the reputation of whistleblowers by informing the prospective employers who are most often their friends and its hard to rectify unless there is change in culture and attitude which probably is beyond the remit of current legislation.