This post concerns a sequence of events that concerned after an ARCP process when I was at Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust and was due to rotate to Guy’s and St Thomas in the summer of 2014 after completing my CT2 year of ACCS. Once my ARCP had concluded, a whistleblowing disclosures was made by me about a situation that had developed from at Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust.
The details of the whistleblowing and it has been misrepresented can be read here.
ARCP 3 June 2014
At the conclusions of my ARCP I made a whistleblowing disclosure about the situation in the relevant ICU at night and made reference to the 2 SUIs and the adverse response I had received at the Trust. The ARCP panel took the situation seriously and were receptive to the issues.
Quite separately, I received an outcome 5 for reasonable reasons . By the 11 June 2014 HEE recorded on my Eportfolio,
“Has made good progress since ARCP” (uploaded audit and passed MCEM (a) day after ARCP) and “Clear plan to achieve outstanding assessments by the ends of the month.”
The Fake ARCP Dispute Invented for the 2018 Hearing
HEE have been desperate to take the emphasis of the fact that they covered up seriosu patient safety issues. So they invented for the litigation in 2018 a dispute between me and the ARCP panel that simply did not occure in 2014 and that the papers.
At the 2018 Tribunal various false statements about the evidence presented to the ARCP panel were put to me to give the impression that there was a big dispute in 2014 about my ARCP outcome 5. This was a complete fabrication but I was prevented from proving it using the bundle.
ARCP Record 5 June 2014
3 days after my ARCP, I found that allegations were recorded on my ARCP record, that I have personal and professional issues and that I do not engage with supervision. These were not discussed with me at the time. This surprised me as my Eportffolio was unanimously positive in particular my clinical supervisor reports.
In a subsequent HEE report, a HEE Director referred to a manuscript document that falsely stated in the ARCP that I had agreed to referred to doctor support service ran by consultant psychiatrists – Mednet. This was then associated with a wildly false account of my ARCP and attempts to deny the validity of my patient safety concerns.
Below is the legal papers where I formally put this evidence to HEE and the Tribunal on 13 November 2020 which resulted in HEE conceding ,my reasonable belief in cover up.
The rest of June 2014
I made 3 written requests for the ARCP allegations to be removed or explained. HEE ignored the substance of the communication and refused to remove or explain the ARCP record. My first letter is below and was ignored;
Only after trade union pressure and legal process did HEE accept that the ARCP record was inappropriate and the refusal to explain my ARCP Record as unreasonable. This took HEE 6 months to accept my ARCP record as inappropriate by that time I was embroiled in litigation.
As my letters were not being dealt with, I made clear to HEE that I would not be signing another contract at another Trust until the allegations had been explained or removed or there had been a formal investigation. By June the situation had been escalating within senior management at Lewisham and Greenwich since January 2014.
Early July 2014
I emailed one of the ARCP panellists. They confirmed they agreed with my protected disclosure, that I was confident and professional when raising them with the panel. They stated that they could not explain the false allegations on my ARCP record. However, they did inform me that a Deputy Director from the Trust had unplanned contact with the ARCP panel and that they were disheartened by what they said about me (whatever that means).
Early July Contact with Guy’s and St Thomas
I was due to rotate to Guy’s and St Thomas. When Guy’s and St Thomas contacted me to make arrangements, I let them know I was in a dispute with the Deanery and that I was essentially being refused any mechanism to resolve it. HEE had refused to process a formal complaint.
Guy’s were helpful and sent me the HEE formal complaint policy which had clear timescales and methods that would bind HEE to deal properly with my complaint. Had this policy been followed things would have resolved in time to rotate to Guy’s.
HEE Suspension of Formal Complaint Policy
Once I sent to HEE their complaint policy (that Guy’s had sent me), I was informed the policy had been suspended for review and could no longer be used.
Guy’s then made a request in July 2014 for me to resign from HEE to allow them to replace me if did not intend to rotate (due to the dispute with HEE).
I formed a view that I did not want this situation hanging over me at a new Trust and so told Guy’s that I would not be agreeing to a new HEE placement until there had been a proper formal process by HEE. Guy’s quite reasonably (in my view) said they could not source a replacement doctor unless I resigned from HEE. I emailed HEE to resign from HEE as a result of this request and HEE’s refusal to progress a formal complaint. It was obvious I was not giving up on my career but stating I was not going to accept this situation going on any longer without a formal process and was clearly prepared to escalate further if required.
I contacted the BMA and then in August 2014 the case passed a merits assessment for whistleblowing detriment claims against HEE and Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust.
On 2 September 2014, there was a formal meeting between me, the BMA and the HEE Post Graduate Dean. The BMA insisted on formal investigations.
HEE did not act on my email of July 2014 resigning that was prompted by Guy’s and St Thomas’ position. So at this point there was no need to delete my National Training Number.
On 2 September 2014, the BMA insisted on formal investigations and informed HEE that they had instructed lawyers on my behalf and made explicit reference to Tribunal claims with whistleblowing law.
Following pressure from the BMA, HEE’s Post Graduate Dean, deleted my National Training Number on the 10 September 2014.
The deletion of my National Training Number on 10 September 2014 is what HEE have to explain. It was clearly an angry response to the following.
(i) An email from the BMA on the very day my National Training Number was deleted criticising HEE’s response to my whistleblowing case and making a legal threat.
(ii) After a letter I sent to the Dean dated 7 September 2014, summarising my understanding of the situation, challenging unfair conditions being placed on future employment and reaching out again for resolution of the situation. My letter starts with the words “ Thank you very much indeed for the meeting on the 2nd September 2014. It was a pleasure to meet you” and ends with the words, “I have not given up on seeking a resolution to this situation and I am grateful for your input in navigating this difficult scenario”. This letter is clearly not me confirming my July 2014 resignation.
Ignoring my reasonable complaint
BMA Challenged Deletion of National Training Number
My Decision to Challenge the Cover Up
If had agreed to go along of with the narrative of denying the validity of serious patient safety issues linked to 2 deaths and accepting a load of smears and false allegations, I accept my Training Number would not have been deleted so in that sense I have chosen to sacrifice my career.
Equally HEE could have treated me fairly and investigated the issues instead of covering them up. HEE chose not to and to attack and smear me with false allegations. They could have processed a formal complaint instead of suspending their formal complaints policy.
HEE could have fought a more honest legal battle which would have meant my case would have been one or lost in 2015. They chose to argue doctors out of whistleblowing protection to stop the case ever being heard. HEE have sent me and my family down the path we have been on for 8 years.
It clearly important to hold HEE to account for arguing doctors out of whistleblowing protection which we will atempt to do on the 5 and 6 December.