Misleading claims by bosses at the health secretary Matt Hancock’s local hospital that the NHS and regulators approved a controversial decision to fingerprint doctors in a hunt for a whistleblower are to be investigated.
In an urgent inquiry the accuracy of a statement by West Suffolk hospital will be examined after the Guardian revealed in December it had demanded fingerprints and handwriting samples from staff.
The hospital, in Bury St Edmunds, said the tactics had been “backed” by the NHS’s head of whistleblowing and the regulator, the Care Quality Commission.
But the accuracy of that statement appears to be unravelling after the CQC said it did not endorse the tactics, which it criticised in a recent hard-hitting report as “unprecedented and concerning”.
The Guardian can now disclose the commission told the trust to withdraw the statement and make clear the watchdog had not approved its actions.
A message from hospital managers to staff, seen by the Guardian, stated: “We would like to clarify that the CQC was not involved in the process or decision-making relating to the actions we undertook to investigate the serious incident and we are sorry if this was not clear.
“The CQC was made aware of the trust’s decisions and actions as part of its regulatory role and inspection process, and takes the raising of concerns by staff incredibly seriously.”
The NHS has refused to say whether it signed off the trust’s tactics. Tom Grimes, the head of whistleblowing at NHS Improvement – the body that oversees patient safety – has not responded to a request to clarify the issue.
The terms of reference for the inquiry make clear it will examine “any advice/interactions the trust sought from other relevant bodies” about the demand for biometric data.
The review was ordered by Hancock after a string of Guardian revelations about intimidation of doctors, who complained about a “culture of fear”. The health secretary has recused himself from the rapid assessment because he is a local MP. Doctors at the trust have accused him of ignoring their concerns about bullying.
Those concerns were centred on the hospital’s extraordinary attempts to identify a member of staff who tipped off Jon Warby about a potentially botched operation before his wife Susan’s death in August 2018.
The anonymous letter sent to Warby by the whistleblower in October 2018 also pointed out that a doctor who had been seen injecting himself with drugs the previous year was present during the operation.
The review will examine how the trust’s chief executive, Stephen Dunn, its medical director, Dr Nick Jenkins, and the board chair, Sheila Childerhouse, responded to the whistleblowing letter and the doctors’ concerns that emerged.
Hancock has a close relationship with Dunn and praised his leadership when he was made a CBE for services to health patient safety in 2018.
The CQC said the trust’s hunt for the letter writer using fingerprints and handwriting were “unprecedented and concerning” as it handed out its biggest-ever rating downgrade.
The trust was previously forced to clarify that the request for fingerprints was not voluntary as it initially claimed, after doctors said they felt it was “coercive”.
A West Suffolk hospital spokeswoman said: “Information on any topic that is shared with our staff or the public is based on our understanding at the time it is asked for. In these complex cases, an independent review with maximum transparency is the right way forward, and we are in support of this approach.”
The terms of reference for the review state it will consider: “The appropriateness and impact of the trust seeking to identify the author of the October letter and the steps it took in doing so, including requesting relevant staff to produce fingerprinting and handwriting samples, and any advice/interactions the trust sought from other relevant bodies.”
The review is being conducted by Christine Outram, the chair of the Christie NHS specialist cancer hospital in Manchester, and is expected to be completed by April.
It will also examine speaking up arrangements at West Suffolk hospital and how it handles “allegations of bullying and undermining behaviour by members of staff”.
CQC inspectors found that the trust’s “freedom to speak up Guardian”, a post designed to encourage whistleblowers, did not fully understand his role and often shared information provided in confidence with the management.
The office of the national guardian for the NHS, an independent post set up to encourage whistleblowing, has already made clear it was not consulted either about the trust’s tactics and did not approve.
National Guardian’s Office
(@NatGuardianFTSU)For clarity, the NGO was not contacted by @WestSuffolkNHS leadership and the body referred to as ‘the NHS national head of whistleblowing’ in their statement on their website is @NHSImprovement, not the NGO: https://t.co/3KYvYK8hCo
Dr Henrietta Hughes, who holds the post, said: “When workers speak up it is crucial that organisations listen and offer support to everyone involved. The emphasis should be on investigating the matter raised rather than trying to identify the individual who is speaking up. Anonymity should be respected.”
The doctors’ union urged medics at the hospital to give evidence to the inquiry. A spokesperson for the British Medical Association said: “We hope that all doctors and healthcare staff affected have an opportunity to contribute to the inquiry so that all issues are clearly identified, thus allowing for a full investigation.
“Wherever there are allegations of bullying and intimidation, an investigation must be thorough, ensure the truth comes to light and where necessary, hold those responsible to account.”
