Spat between Chief Minister and Dr Glover

[Roger Mexico]

12 minutes ago, momo65 said:

I'm not so sure. Yes has offered to assist but don't recall her saying she would not look for credit for doing so. This is about personal relationships & it's rarely the fault of a single party. 

And why shouldn't she expect credit for what she does?  There's actually an important scientific point here - publishing scientific data and papers isn't just about kudos, it's about responsibility and progress.  If work goes out under the name of someone who had nothing to do with it, but who wants to show how important they are, then they're not going to be much use if other scientists want to find out about the work an build on it.

[momo65]

In many ways IOMG has the same problem with GPS, opticians, dentists etc who are independent contractors who can, and do, express themselves when they disagree with DHSC management. They however are bound by professional ethical codes of behaviour. 

[Apple]

54 minutes ago, momo65 said:

In many ways IOMG has the same problem with GPS, opticians, dentists etc who are independent contractors who can, and do, express themselves when they disagree with DHSC management. They however are bound by professional ethical codes of behaviour. 

That is why we need the recommendations from the latest "Whistleblowing Committee" to be followed up in Tynwald. The benefits of a Disclosure in the Public Interest and a Duty of Candour will enable and allow those with professional responsibilities or people in a position of trust to automatically provide information to patients and /or the public when things go awry.

You never know, but maybe politicians...

[momo65]

18 minutes ago, Apple said:

That is why we need the recommendations from the latest "Whistleblowing Committee" to be followed up in Tynwald. The benefits of a Disclosure in the Public Interest and a Duty of Candour will enable and allow those with professional responsibilities or people in a position of trust to automatically provide information to patients and /or the public when things go awry.

You never know, but maybe politicians...

I think the hypothetical point I was making is that if a clinical health professional withdrew their services (especially if they had special expertise) in the middle of a health emergency they would likely face sanction by their professional regulator irrespective of the perceived provocation (which might be a defence or mitigation) 

[Apple]

Withdrawal of services without an accepted valid reason (say surrounding the issue of abortion) would lead to a serious breach. 

Reporting shortfalls to resources like staffing and equipment depends on who and how it is reported, and only internally I would assume would be acceptable at present.  

More serious issues like mistakes or situations / events leading to potential or actual more serious outcomes (harm)  for patient and / or public should be reported using an established system with policies and procedures for people to follow. 

Date, Ridor etc)

At the moment I don't think it is compulsory to report some circumstances or even all events that should need to be investigated further. 

Anyone in hospital making a complaint should have access and be given copies of all the records appertaining to their treatment and care (or their relatives) but in my experience that is not the case. 

[rachomics]

23 minutes ago, momo65 said:

I think the hypothetical point I was making is that if a clinical health professional withdrew their services (especially if they had special expertise) in the middle of a health emergency they would likely face sanction by their professional regulator irrespective of the perceived provocation (which might be a defence or mitigation) 

I didn't withdraw my services in the middle of a health emergency. I volunteered my services in the middle of a health emergency in March, got brought on board and then at least 3 other people took credit for my skills and expertise for 8 months. I was told I didn't work for the DHSC both privately and (very) publicly in the press. So I resigned, with the expectation that I would continue the same work as the external contractor David Ashford had been describing me as. 

The DHSC decided to ignore my lawyers, didn't know what they needed in enough detail to write it down specifically in an agreement, tried to avoid the legal agreement route and when I insisted on it they threatened me with a negative press release if I didn't come back and help them. After that particular conversation there was absolutely no way I was prepared to do any work for them without the appropriate written agreements in place and responses to my lawyers questions. They made their choice and decided to tell the press (through David Ashford) that they could do it all on their own and didn't need me or my company's expertise. 

I wouldn't call that a withdrawal of services. It comes pretty close to constructive dismissal though. 

[Out of the blue]

5 minutes ago, rachomics said:

I didn't withdraw my services in the middle of a health emergency. I volunteered my services in the middle of a health emergency in March, got brought on board and then at least 3 other people took credit for my skills and expertise for 8 months. I was told I didn't work for the DHSC both privately and (very) publicly in the press. So I resigned, with the expectation that I would continue the same work as the external contractor David Ashford had been describing me as. 

The DHSC decided to ignore my lawyers, didn't know what they needed in enough detail to write it down specifically in an agreement, tried to avoid the legal agreement route and when I insisted on it they threatened me with a negative press release if I didn't come back and help them. After that particular conversation there was absolutely no way I was prepared to do any work for them without the appropriate written agreements in place and responses to my lawyers questions. They made their choice and decided to tell the press (through David Ashford) that they could do it all on their own and didn't need me or my company's expertise. 

I wouldn't call that a withdrawal of services. It comes pretty close to constructive dismissal though. 

Whilst accepting that there are always two sides to any story, however, assuming that what you wrote is factual (no reason to doubt otherwise), it is unacceptable that politicians and civil servants should choose to play politics at this time. It smacks of leaders and management with low self esteem and moral courage. They need to take a really good look at themselves... 

[rachomics]

It wasn't the politicians at play with the legal stuff, it was DHSC staff. 

[Apple]

Just now, Out of the blue said:

They need to take a really good look at themselves... 

Won't make any difference. They always believe they are in the right.

 

13 minutes ago, rachomics said:

It comes pretty close to constructive dismissal though. 

There is only one way to test that. Employment Tribunal. You won't be the first or the only one to use this for the DHSC.

[Apple]

1 minute ago, rachomics said:

It wasn't the politicians at play with the legal stuff, it was DHSC staff. 

And I'll bet I know exactly who you mean...

[rachomics]

Just now, Apple said:

There is only one way to test that. Employment Tribunal. You won't be the first or the only one to use this for the DHSC.

I thought about it and a few in the path lab encouraged me to take the DHSC to the cleaners over it. But in the end, I decided that I have better things to be doing with my time. 

[Roger Mexico]

9 minutes ago, momo65 said:

I think the hypothetical point I was making is that if a clinical health professional withdrew their services (especially if they had special expertise) in the middle of a health emergency they would likely face sanction by their professional regulator irrespective of the perceived provocation (which might be a defence or mitigation) 

To add to @rachomics reply above, no professional regulator would censure professionals who refused unreasonable demands made on them.  If it was an emergency situation, what was considered unreasonable might be changed, but that makes it all the more important that things should be done properly.  Instead you seem to be implying that emergencies should just be used as an excuse for the DHSC to impose their whims on health professionals, whether those decisions are for the best clinically, professionally or scientifically.

2 hours ago, momo65 said:

In many ways IOMG has the same problem with GPS, opticians, dentists etc who are independent contractors who can, and do, express themselves when they disagree with DHSC management. They however are bound by professional ethical codes of behaviour. 

It's very revealing that the fact that independent professionals are allowed to disagree with management is seen as a 'problem'.  Clearly what is important isn't that the DHSC provides the best health service it can, but that its management should be allowed to do whatever it feels like.  And such decisions should never be disagreed with or criticised by anyone.

[Out of the blue]

22 minutes ago, rachomics said:

It wasn't the politicians at play with the legal stuff, it was DHSC staff. 

Ashford must have been aware of the situation and either agreed with the DHSC staff, or wasn't either prepared or able to intervene to the contrary?

[Annoymouse]

2 minutes ago, Out of the blue said:

Ashford must have been aware of the situation and either agreed with the DHSC staff, or wasn't either prepared or able to intervene to the contrary?

I would imagine he’ll believe whatever he get told first, the squeaky wheel always gets the grease first, Ashford also has to be seen to support his department.

[jaymann]

5 minutes ago, Out of the blue said:

Ashford must have been aware of the situation and either agreed with the DHSC staff, or wasn't either prepared or able to intervene to the contrary?

Ultimately he holds the political power.

But that responsibility ultimately sits with Magson- that part time UK based DHSC CEO - who reports and delivers information to the political member (Ashford).