IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[Babydoc]

2 minutes ago, Gladys said:

I am thinking someone from the BMA who does not have their employment dependent on their relationship with Manx Care. 

That support is provided by the BMA regional office in Liverpool

[Gladys]

3 minutes ago, Babydoc said:

Possibly

 

Some senior BMA official embedded somehow in Manx Care was more what I was thinking of. 

[Shake me up Judy]

Hooper has carried on digging that hole like Cool Hand Luke. When's he gonna quit ?

 

[Gladys]

12 minutes ago, StrangeBrew said:

But wasn’t the tribunal a pretty thorough investigation of all of that? And IOM Gov have acknowledged the findings.  What if - and I’m really not saying this is at all likely - but what if an independent enquiry uncovered some wrongdoing on the part of Dr Ranson that might have contributed? It just feels like raking over everything that has already been subject to a thorough enquiry could undermine the tribunal? 
 

Having said that, I would be interested to know if an independent enquiry would have teeth as far as Magson goes, given IOM had no jurisdiction to pursue her. 

It was a thorough review of what happened to Dr R, but not the culture, structural and management failings that allowed that to happen, although there were clear signals raised. It is those clear signals that need to be investigated. 

Noble's is still not a happy place.  I was in a shop several days ago and came across an aisle blocked by a couple of people chatting and catching up (happens all the time in the IOM, I love it).  One person asked the other how X was doing and were they still doing Y. The reply was, "oh yes, they love it but not at the hospital, too much bullying there."  

Now, I don't know what job they are doing or where else they may be doing it, but it seems there are people at whatever level in the health service who really cannot hack the culture. 

Let's face it, most people in healthcare, from the lowliest hospital orderly or porter to the highly qualified and expert surgeon, have a deep vocational motivation.  Traditionally, this is rewarded inadequately financially, and this has been sucked up 'because I love the job'.  But, when you add a dismissive, bullying and intimidating culture, do you wonder why it is so understaffed?

The only way to address this is an honest, thorough, fair, constructive, objective and contrite investigation.  You could add independent, but the other adjectives should cover it. 

 

[rachomics]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

As has been observed by others, the absence of any of the main (only 3!) MHK dissenters from the committee overseeing the investigation has missed a chance to affirm the intended independence of the process. 

I believe that by meeting Dr. Ranson this meant that the three MHKs were no longer independent.

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, rachomics said:

I believe that by meeting Dr. Ranson this meant that the three MHKs were no longer independent.

So, none of the other members have met the DHSC Ministers involved?  An overt  supporter of Dr R would be in a minority but would bring balance, don't you think?  

[rachomics]

13 minutes ago, Gladys said:

So, none of the other members have met the DHSC Ministers involved?  An overt  supporter of Dr R would be in a minority but would bring balance, don't you think?  

I agree re balance! But in my experience, backbenchers soon become Ministers. At which point some kind of metamorphosis occurs where the "company line" is adopted. I'm not sure of the biological mechanism for this but I'm sure it involves senior officers and the press office. 

In order to be TRULY independent, you'd need to find someone who hasn't been a departmental member, who hasn't met Dr. Ranson, who hasn't been involved at all. 

Which is why the UK intervention is being called for by the BMA.

[asitis]

1 hour ago, Shake me up Judy said:

Hooper has carried on digging that hole like Cool Hand Luke. When's he gonna quit ?

 

He's too stupid for his own good !

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, rachomics said:

I agree re balance! But in my experience, backbenchers soon become Ministers. At which point some kind of metamorphosis occurs where the "company line" is adopted. I'm not sure of the biological mechanism for this but I'm sure it involves senior officers and the press office. 

In order to be TRULY independent, you'd need to find someone who hasn't been a departmental member, who hasn't met Dr. Ranson, who hasn't been involved at all. 

Which is why the UK intervention is being called for by the BMA.a

Totally agree, but there seems to be an attitude of 'look at what we are doing' and until someone puts their fingers up their collective nostrils to drag them to the reality, they will not acknowledge the huge importance this has for the IOM. 

That is why, at the very least, there should have been  a vocal supporter on that team.

There is no conflict of interest, might be a conflict of views, but that is what is needed.

[rachomics]

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

Totally agree, but there seems to be an attitude of 'look at what we are doing' and until someone puts their fingers up their collective nostrils to drag them to the reality, they will not acknowledge the huge importance this has for the IOM. 

That is why, at the very least, there should have been  a vocal supporter on that team.

There is no conflict of interest, might be a conflict of views, but that is what is needed.

18-24 months ago I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you. But, given my experience, I stand by "backbenchers become ministers".

None of the MHKs can be truly trusted to be independent. They all stand around the same water cooler, trading gossip. 

[Dirty Buggane]

I sincerely believe UK Intervention is long over due and not just in the Ranson case.

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, rachomics said:

18-24 months ago I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you. But, given my experience, I stand by "backbenchers become ministers".

None of the MHKs can be truly trusted to be independent. They all stand around the same water cooler, trading gossip. 

I don't think we are far apart at all.  If IOMG think this cuts the mustard, they are very wrong.  It doesn't cut the mustard with the interested electorate, and will definitely not do anything to reassure the BMA.

My point was that they really have not read the room and think that doing 'something' will fix it.  It won't, because the interested electorate aren't buying it. It is a sticking plaster and they hoped it would assuage the majority, and TBH, it probably has.  But it has not covered even the basics, leaving  them more exposed to the BMA.

Never under estimate the opposition, and that is exactly what has happened.  Rather than put together a group of MHKs with opposing views who will wrestle and challenge, they have put together a pretty ineffectual group. 

If they thought that could be viewed as credible, let alone independent, is beyond belief. 

 

[Shake me up Judy]

I don't know about the third member of the Tynwald Select Committee elected to oversee the Inquiry; but one of them got £40million out of Treasury a couple of years back, which hardly makes them independent; and the other hasn't said a peep throughout the entire Ranson affair. If the U.K. set up their own Inquiry they'll be surplus to requirements anyway. 

[Gladys]

9 minutes ago, Gladys said:

I don't think we are far apart at all.  If IOMG think this cuts the mustard, they are very wrong.  It doesn't cut the mustard with the interested electorate, and will definitely not do anything to reassure the BMA.

My point was that they really have not read the room and think that doing 'something' will fix it.  It won't, because the interested electorate aren't buying it. It is a sticking plaster and they hoped it would assuage the majority, and TBH, it probably has.  But it has not covered even the basics, leaving  them more exposed to the BMA.

Never under estimate the opposition, and that is exactly what has happened.  Rather than put together a group of MHKs with opposing views who will wrestle and challenge, they have put together a pretty ineffectual group. 

If they thought that could be viewed as credible, let alone independent, is beyond belief. 

 

I should add, that they didn't even try to set up a credible response is the really worrying aspect. 

[Gladys]

9 minutes ago, Shake me up Judy said:

I don't know about the third member of the Tynwald Select Committee elected to oversee the Inquiry; but one of them got £40million out of Treasury a couple of years back, which hardly makes them independent; and the other hasn't said a peep throughout the entire Ranson affair. If the U.K. set up their own Inquiry they'll be surplus to requirements anyway. 

Who are the chosen ones? Please remind me.