IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[wrighty]

2 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Except of course for management where a history of 18 month to three year posts seems mandatory and can be claimed as showing that they're a 'trouble-shooter' - rather than the trouble that was got shot of.

Not that I want to start a turf war, but this is one of the causes of the ‘them and us’ situation that undoubtedly exists between hospital management and clinicians. 
 

When you appoint a nurse/doctor (to a substantive, permanent position) there are people on the panel specifically to ensure that the candidates are qualified for the role, such that you can be pretty sure when a consultant is appointed, he or she will be fully qualified, be on the specialist register, has undertaken higher specialist training etc. When a senior manager is appointed there are no such checks, because there are no such qualifications and no regulatory bodies to check with. This leads to stories, for example, of finance directors who used to serve the chips in the canteen.  And since medical careers are often far longer lasting, there can be current consultants who were in post when said finance director used to serve the chips. You can see why there might not be the mutual respect that there ought to be. 
 

I think the NHS are trying to address this through the leadership academy etc, but we still see managers appointed who have no qualifications besides their self-authored LinkedIn profile. 

[hampsterkahn]

19 hours ago, wrighty said:

References are not worth the paper they’re written on 

Agreed - that’s why though sensible people do extra checks - a simple  telephone call can be very  illuminating.

Not so very long ago, a senior doctor was appointed here in the IoM.

Had even the most basic checks been made, let alone a CRB check ( it wasn’t for some reason ) it would have revealed that the appointee was a wanted criminal.

[360 View]

3 minutes ago, wrighty said:

Not that I want to start a turf war, but this is one of the causes of the ‘them and us’ situation that undoubtedly exists between hospital management and clinicians. 
 

When you appoint a nurse/doctor (to a substantive, permanent position) there are people on the panel specifically to ensure that the candidates are qualified for the role, such that you can be pretty sure when a consultant is appointed, he or she will be fully qualified, be on the specialist register, has undertaken higher specialist training etc. When a senior manager is appointed there are no such checks, because there are no such qualifications and no regulatory bodies to check with. This leads to stories, for example, of finance directors who used to serve the chips in the canteen.  And since medical careers are often far longer lasting, there can be current consultants who were in post when said finance director used to serve the chips. You can see why there might not be the mutual respect that there ought to be. 
 

I think the NHS are trying to address this through the leadership academy etc, but we still see managers appointed who have no qualifications besides their self-authored LinkedIn profile. 

It is easy to check registration with the GMC, its ‘specialist register, NMC, health and social care et al for qualifications, whether the position is substantive, bank or locum - its all free, anyone can do it. There are also lost of registers for ‘non-medical’ qualifications available publicly, or at a nominal fee, so if someone claims a certain qualification in a ‘management’ function there will, generally, be a register - checking, or relying on, claims of qualifications made on a social media profile is a recipe for disaster - if Manx Care is appointing people to posts, whether medical, non-medical, substantive or not, it should spend at least 30 minutes checking the qualifications cited. There is literally no excuse, especially as the purse needs protecting.

Perhaps I should think about setting up a service to do the checks for Manx Care…. 

[wrighty]

12 minutes ago, hampsterkahn said:

Agreed - that’s why though sensible people do extra checks - a simple  telephone call can be very  illuminating.

Not so very long ago, a senior doctor was appointed here in the IoM.

Had even the most basic checks been made, let alone a CRB check ( it wasn’t for some reason ) it would have revealed that the appointee was a wanted criminal.

You’re referring to Dirk Hoehmann I assume. In this case I don’t think phonecalls would have helped much. He worked in Aintree before here, I believe, and was clinically soind, so off-radar phonecalls wouldn’t have raised any alarm bells. I think CRB checks were done, but didn’t cover his European time, so didn’t pick up the wanted criminal bit. 
 

Re my previous post. I should point out that the serving chips/finance director story relates to a UK hospital, not Noble’s. 

[0bserver]

6 minutes ago, wrighty said:

I think CRB checks were done, but didn’t cover his European time, so didn’t pick up the wanted criminal bit. 

Brexit Bonus.

[finlo]

6 minutes ago, wrighty said:

You’re referring to Dirk Hoehmann I assume. In this case I don’t think phonecalls would have helped much. He worked in Aintree before here, I believe, and was clinically soind, so off-radar phonecalls wouldn’t have raised any alarm bells. I think CRB checks were done, but didn’t cover his European time, so didn’t pick up the wanted criminal bit. 
 

Re my previous post. I should point out that the serving chips/finance director story relates to a UK hospital, not Noble’s. 

Seems to be de rigueur for every other government department!

[hampsterkahn]

11 hours ago, wrighty said:

I think CRB checks were done, but didn’t cover his European time, so didn’t pick up the wanted criminal bit. 
 

 

You may think CRB checks were done ..but they were not .

It is a matter of public record:

Reference - “Standing Committee of Tynwald and Public Acounts Report by Manx Authorities of Dr Dirk Hoemann” 2012/2013.

Despite such checks already being “advised” by DHSC, they were for some reason not done here.The excuse given in evidence by the CEO at the time was that such checks were not “mandatory”.

Because he had employed previously elsewhere in the NHS can hardly be  an excuse not to do their own checking.

It is possible to thoroughly check references from someone in EU .

The fact he on the run from Germany isn’t very reassuring about Interpol.

This was hardly Sherlock Holmes stuff was it ?
- Just how many ENT surgeons are on the run at any time ?

- seeking employment ( as an ENT surgeon !) -  and even using their own name?
( All he had to do was be rather confident-  and drop an “n” from his surname to evade scrutiny)

If you are uncomfortable about a reference, you can always tactfully remind the referee of the current GMC ethical advice that they by providing a reference they have a responsibility to provide candid evidence and to withhold details which be might lead to patients being at risk means they themselves could be deemed to have committed serious professional misconduct. 

 

Edited December 5, 2022 by hampsterkahn

[Hoops]

10 hours ago, 0bserver said:

Brexit Bonus.

in 2011?

[0bserver]

17 minutes ago, Hoops said:

in 2011?

Ahead of our time.

[John Wright]

35 minutes ago, Hoops said:

in 2011?

 

17 minutes ago, 0bserver said:

Ahead of our time.

It wasn’t even as late 2011.

The “convictions” were in 2004. He was employed here in 2005.

The EU arrest warrant was notified by German authorities to UK authorities in 2005, but not entered into the register, so even when, belatedly, DHSC did a check ( they’d received a tip off ) in 2008 it didn’t show.

Because EU Arrest Warrants don’t extend to IoM the relevant authorities in England also told IoM police not to notify DHSC of its existence.

As DH has exercised his European right to be “forgotten” there is little on Google. But my vague recollection is that these “convictions” were not normal criminal court proceedings but arose out of an insolvency procedure relating to the failure of a private clinic. The warrant was due to his failure to surrender to prison.

Im not actually sure the insolvency “convictions” would show up on an EU CRB

I had to keep a careful watch on postings in 2011/12 and DH sought removal of the topic under the right to be forgotten provisions in 2014, so the moderating team had to fully investigate.

[0bserver]

7 minutes ago, John Wright said:

 

It wasn’t even as late 2011.

The “convictions” were in 2004. He was employed here in 2005.

The EU arrest warrant was notified by German authorities to UK authorities in 2005, but not entered into the register, so even when, belatedly, DHSC did a check ( they’d received a tip off ) in 2008 it didn’t show.

Because EU Arrest Warrants don’t extend to IoM the relevant authorities in England also told IoM police not to notify DHSC of its existence.

As DH has exercised his European right to be “forgotten” there is little on Google. But my vague recollection is that these “convictions” were not normal criminal court proceedings but arose out of an insolvency procedure relating to the failure of a private clinic. The warrant was due to his failure to surrender to prison.

Im not actually sure the insolvency “convictions” would show up on an EU CRB

I had to keep a careful watch on postings in 2011/12 and DH sought removal of the topic under the right to be forgotten provisions in 2014, so the moderating team had to fully investigate.

This is a lot older than I thought.

[John Wright]

3 minutes ago, 0bserver said:

This is a lot older than I thought.

It also very usefully demonstrates the sort of things the moderating team have to deal, with on a regular basis, that doesn’t even appear on the face of the forums.

[0bserver]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

It also very usefully demonstrates the sort of things the moderating team have to deal, with on a regular basis, that doesn’t even appear on the face of the forums.

Do you get a lot of requests like that? 

[John Wright]

13 minutes ago, 0bserver said:

Do you get a lot of requests like that? 

I’ve dealt with several over the years, plus correspondence from lawyers representing people upset by what is posted and threatening all sorts, actual proceedings, correspondence from the police trying to close topics down or obtain info.

About one such incident a month. All to give members somewhere to post.

Then we’ve had posters stalking the mod team and threatening to identify them. One poster watched family members of one moderator and threatened to out them.

The sub judice ones are pretty frequent.

Then there are the spammers who sign up and post sex adverts, or fake passports, pills, counterfeit or dubious links. Several of those a day.

Its different to FB or twitter. There’s no body above that aggrieved people can complain to. It’s time intensive.

Then we get trolling, turn of the screw tit for tat posts and personal attacks. 

The current moderating team have been doing it for a number of years. The approach is consistent. However it is true that our attitude to what we might intervene in, and our tolerance levels, are probably more sensitive than they were.

[Jarndyce]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

Then we’ve had posters stalking the mod team and threatening to identify them. One poster watched family members of one moderator and threatened to out them.

That’s distressing - I don’t know if I would continue under those circumstances.   Above and beyond the call of duty, really.   Clearly, a bigger debt of thanks is due to the Mods than I have realised to date.