Secret Filming Nurse "struck off"

[Dauphin]

She probably saw herself as Mitch McDeere from the Firm, the novel version rather than the movie.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Congratulations. You missed the whole point of why she got struck off. She filmed vulnerable adults who could not consent to being part of a film and then handed over said film containing priviligded infomation to a third party, when she was trusted to act in the patients best interests.

She abused the patients and should be fired.

The fact that her bosses were incompetent wankers who don't understand their, or anyone elses' job, is irrelevent.

Yes, exposing the awful conditions is in the patients best interests. There are policies in place to do that (and if there aren't the Government has the power to close the hospital).

What she did was film the patients, conversations with them, without them knowing. The rights of those patients to not have their conditions publicised were infringed.

That is why she should be fired.

The last sentence doesn't even make sense though. Both the 'whistleblower', and managers in Stafford Hospital were the abusers in this situation.

Krill sums up the points nicely.

Whilst she may have had laudable goals, she went about things in completely the wrong way.

Wrong way?!? - I am sure that the thousands of complaints made every year, are the right way, and look where they got them... they are all so efficient with brilliant (French level ) care now. Really you deserve what you get, and there is no doubt that when you go and complain to the management your concerns will be considered... eventually, more likely than not... after you are dead... because you see... there is a lot of work to do.... and paitents are already waiting on the toilet for hours... so one more complaint.... they'll fix it for future generations in 22nd century... In case that fails go to the government... it's highly advisable... maybe they'll shut them all down, and at the end there will be Great Ormonds Street Hospital, with funds to go to France in case you need to see a doctor for everyone else...

here it the original story

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4655929.stm

with a few snippets

Panorama's investigation is a stark portrayal of the indignities faced by elderly people as they reach the end of their days in a major British hospital.

• Patients in excruciating pain from terminal cancer because their pain relief drugs were not being administered properly.

• Patients desperate to use the toilet having to wait for lengthy periods while nurses fail to respond to their calls for help.

• Nurses eating patients food in the kitchen whilst some patients who were unable to feed themselves went hungry.

• And how patients can die alone and unnoticed.

with the official response at the time

When shown some of the filmed evidence gathered by Panorama's undercover nurse the chief executive of the hospital trust told Panorama that: "Clearly they are very disturbing images and I was shocked to see them. The first thing I would like to do is to apologise on behalf of the Trust to those patients and their relatives for those lapses in quality of care that were uncovered at that time."

"We received a number of complaints in the autumn of last year, in November and December, and that triggered an internal investigation into the ward which was done by our nursing directorate in partnership with our patient and public involvement forum to understand what the problems were. That led to a whole series of changes on the ward culminating in a new ward manager being appointed in March, and I'm pleased to say that things are now improved significantly since that time."

But Panorama reveals that serious problems still remained on the ward as late as May 2005.

and the comment from producers

Undercover Nurse follows on from the broadcast of A Carer's Story in 2003, which generated nearly one thousand calls, letters and emails. Some of these callers raised concerns about hospital care for the elderly.

On investigating further we found that the hospital which featured in some of these concerns had itself also received complaints from patients and their families. Panorama felt that undercover filming was the only way to discover what was really happening.

otherwise I wander whether you would be "very upset" while dying from terminal cancer, being in (terminal cancer) pain plus hungry on top... because you are being secretly filmed, assuming that you survive the ordeal in the first place. Would you really be very pissed off that someone showed your mistreatment to the world, or not... there while waiting for some other nurse to take you to the toilet (after you found out)... I am sure you would be thinking... "that secret filming bastard nurse, my privacy rights were neglected"... In a very English way the person who brought a little bit of light on this mis-treatment (which undoubtedly continues, despite of the family complaints - how shocking!) is being struck off and that was "deserved"... What can I say?!? It explains perfectly why most things here run as they do... under the carpet... stay in line... and complain... to the "authorities"... while dying from cancer ... it's almost like Jews waiting in line for gas chambers complaining to the authorities about "mistreatment" and waiting for the resolution... in a positive way at least they were not in too much pain while waiting in the queue.

[Felch]

Yes, exposing the awful conditions is in the patients best interests. There are policies in place to do that (and if there aren't the Government has the power to close the hospital).

She said she had voiced her concerns through her immediate line manager "but nothing was really taken on board" and the whole process now needed to be reviewed.

Refute that or STFU.

I'd place the privacy of a few patients far below the importance of exposing abuse and neglect in a system that refuses to acknowledge it. I guess you and I have different priorities.

How exactly is the Government going to know to take action without this evidence? Especially given the distraction of the economic crisis.

[Dauphin]

To believe that telling your immediate line manager of systematic failings is "whistleblowing" is naive verging on the retarded.

[C0ckney]

She filmed vulnerable adults who could not consent to being part of a film and then handed over said film containing priviligded infomation to a third party

She shouldn't have been the only one fired though.

she broke rules on patient confidentiality as part of an effort to expose dreadful conditions in the hospital. breaking rules in order to expose some greater wrong is how whistle blowing works, this being a textbook example. obviously, under most circumstances, it would be completely unacceptable to go into a hospital and film patients without their consent. it's really a question of whether you think the circumstances were exceptional enough to warrant breaching confidentiality in this way. i saw the program in question (it was on about 4 years ago so my recollection isn't perfect) and based on that i think they were and she was right to do what she did. others may take a different view but the outcome of these proceedings look like a complete stitch up from where i'm sitting.

it's all very well to say that she went about it the wrong way, but in the bbc article it says she raised concerns with her manager and nothing was done. if conditions were that bad and the management weren't interested, then what choice does it leaves nurses like her?

[Dauphin]

Going to an MP with the footage would have been a better recourse if she was not satisfied with written notice (with footage) to the non-executive directors of the Trust or the Department of Health.

[Krill]

She said she had voiced her concerns through her immediate line manager "but nothing was really taken on board" and the whole process now needed to be reviewed.

Refute that or STFU.

I'd place the privacy of a few patients far below the importance of exposing abuse and neglect in a system that refuses to acknowledge it. I guess you and I have different priorities.

How exactly is the Government going to know to take action without this evidence? Especially given the distraction of the economic crisis.

Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, dictates the right to privacy (Z v Finland).

Privacy and dignity (basic overview of how to manage it)

Hospital Cleanliness and the method of annual assessment.

Methods of solving problems with staff though incompetence and such

What now, *****?

Personally, I feel that Dauphin is right that it would be better to take this to an MP than to the BBC, ideally to the Health Minister (although to be on the safe side make a copy so that you can take it to the BC/opposition if the government tries to suppress it).

[Sirotnikov]

By providing it to the Beeb without pixelating she has passed on confidential and personally identifiable material to a third party.

Which is a perfectly legal reason for termination, but we both know it is bull****.

It's like people who are fired for defying the secrecy act, after uncovering immoral actions / decision making in the government.

[Dauphin]

That doesn't compare. In those circumstances disclosing any information is considered illegal..

She could have given a full interview or article to any news media with fully documented anonymised details. She could have used the video evidence as proof if her claims were challenged by a lawsuit. Neither would have affected her professional standing or cost her her job.

[Dauphin]

Ultimately, she should have taken legal advice in some way, shape or form.

[Sirotnikov]

She did what she thought would solve the problem best and quickest.

for her.

They have a good legal ground to fire her, but it stinks. They don't like it because they hate people talking to the press and "washing dirty clothes in everyone's view". I doubt anyone had the patient's best interests in mind when it was done.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

here is the update

http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_8013000/8013221.stm

if you are from UK - you can also watch the follow up episode (till the end of the week I think)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00k36vp/Panorama_Whod_Be_an_NHS_Whistleblower

and a few snippets

In Who'd be a NHS whistleblower? Panorama delves further into the reality of whistleblowing protections in the NHS, asking if Ms Haywood's punishment paints a disturbing picture of what really happens when someone blows the whistle.
.
The undercover investigation at Royal Sussex County Hospital - for which the trust has both apologised and instituted a series of measures to address the shortcomings - is roundly praised by families and friends of the frail patients who Ms Haywood encountered.

Royal Sussex County Hospital
The hospital has both apologised and instituted key changes

Four years later, Panorama hears from Waida Dando, a close friend and the next of kin to Jessie, an 86-year-old cancer patient who died during the time that Ms Haywood was working as an agency nurse on the ward.

Despite a career with the United Nations that took her to Geneva, the ability to speak three languages and financial independence in her retirement, Jessie died alone and unnoticed one night when Ms Haywood was not on shift.

Her death was first noticed by an undercover Panorama journalist who had gotten work with the private contractor that delivers meals to patients in the hospital and who was also secret filming.

"If you didn't have that film who would believe anything?" said Ms Dando. "People have to know what is going on, you can't just bury it and pretend it didn't happen. You could see it everyone was desperate wanting help - but there weren't any nurses."

Rachel Hatton's father Gilbert was one of Ms Haywood's patients on the ward. When Ms Haywood encountered him he had been given an enema and left in his own dirt by a nurse going off her shift.

Ms Hatton felt so strongly about the issues raised by the secret filming for Panorama that she wrote the NMC and spoke in Ms Haywood's defence at her tribunal.

"I found the coverage of Panorama a realistic overview of the appalling conditions I viewed myself," she wrote. "I admire Ms Haywood for her professionalism and bravery in the whole matter...she has put her career on the line because she was not willing to sit back and watch the injustice."

[Velociryx]

IMO, the lady's a hero for doing what she did.

Unfortunately, heroes have to be able to bear ALL the consequences of their actions, and in this case, since she crossed a legal line, she can certainly rely on the fact that the system she's trying to change will defend itself, and she's handed them a handy stick to do just that.

Sure, she could have gone a different route. Handled things differently and perhaps gotten herself in less of a situation, but the act itself and what she was attempting to accomplish is still, at its core, a heroic thing.

Any time anybody attempts to do something heroic, they run the risk that someone will try to sue, or fire, or cause harm to the one trying to do the saving.

Many years ago I remember reading a story 'bout a guy (he wasn't a member of the fire and rescue team...just a guy who kept his wits and acted quickly and decisively) who was rescuing people from a collapsing building and one of the "rescuees" tried to sue the person who saved him for kidnapping. *rolls eyes*

So sure, she could have done stuff differently. Still, good for her.

-=Vel=-