Belatedly, and after initially refusing to follow the recommendations of an investigation, Great Ormond Street Hospital has apologised to whistleblower Kim Holt who raised concerns about the unit that subsequently failed to properly protect Baby Peter.
Kim Holt (along with three other senior consultant paediatricians) tried to warn about serious failings in the unit which were, in their view, putting vulnerable children at risk. However, the hospital’s reactions ranged from suspending her through to blocking her return to work and failing to follow up on the recommendations of an investigation into her case.
The belated apology has taken Kim Holt three years to secure and once again raises questions about the judgement of Great Ormond Street Hospital’s Chief Executive, Jane Collins.
Jane Collins previously avoided a GMC investigation into her performance over the death of Baby Peter because she left the medical register shortly before any investigation could start and who has also been under fire for Great Ormond Street’s withholding of key information that was critical about its performance from two outside inquiries into Baby P’s death.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Raven: Phil Daniels and archaeology encounter nuclear waste
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Churchill and Lloyd George: Rivals for Greatness - new podcast series
Climate change ushers in record-breaking July
Nigel Jones
Peter Davies
Cassie
Peter Chambers
Rif Winfield
2 Comments
I’ve been down the road of whistleblowing and being suspended for it over highlighting criminal offences.
Personally I would say the failures that occur by going after a whistleblower are usually a few together:-
a) seeing the whistleblower as “the problem”
b) “shooting the messenger”
c) feeling that the organisation’s reputation has been besmirched by X leaking out
d) protecting people within the organisation for responsibility
e) making sure the whistleblower doesn’t whistleblow again by suspending them
f) suspending the whistleblower to discredit them as a credible source of information
g) lack of knowledge of the Public Disclosure Act
h) thinking the person won’t take it to an Employment Tribunal
i) when the accusations are of a serious nature regarding former employees or current workers.
j) because they don’t like the whistleblower out of jealousy, personality clashes or a protected characteristic eg gay, disabled, from an ethnic minority etc
Oh and hoping that in the (as in this case) three years it takes to sort out, that the people responsible will have retired, changed jobs as well as sending a message to the organisation’s other employees as to what will happen if they open their mouths.
Suspending a whistleblower acts as an example and has a chilling effect on freedom of speech.
Surely there must be a way of taking Jane Collins to court. She has failed in her duty towards at least one child. There must be more that can be done. Can’t the lawyers amongst us come up with a way of using the law to get some sort of justice for this murdered child? Jane Collins contributed towards his death, apparently, by not following up warnings. With Britain’s plethora of laws there must be something that applies.