By continuing to use the site you agree to our Privacy & Cookies policy

David Dickinson

David Dickinson


37 years and specialist behavioural practitioner since 1983. Fired by TEWV NHS after ten months following whistleblowing against malpractices including abusive seclusions and two resulting service wide inquiries and consequent practice changes and the personal thanks of the CEO. Fired a month later for looking at the particular seclusion victims file, not for confidentiality breaching but because it was for "too long". Currently trying to understand the NMC position.
Pic is dismanteling the first seclusion box that I was expected to use as the new unit charge nurse in 1983 against a direct "management directive".

Recent activity

Comments (28)

  • Comment on: 'Terrific role model' retires after 30 years as LD nurse

    David Dickinson's comment 22-Apr-2014 3:22 pm

    I could have done with Tina on the NMC panel of my recent case when a rogue NHS trust referred me after I forced two internal inquiries and stopped not just bad seclusion practices but particularly abusive examples involving learning disabled people. Unfortunately the NMC decided to side with the trust and found me guilty of successfully stopping one particular abuse without the permission of the victim despite having previously reported it at length. With a not dissimilar career of commissioning specialist services both in the NHS and private sector I am not looking forward to retirement but to any work I can find. My case is described on my twitter blog.

  • Comment on: What to do if you are referred to the NMC

    David Dickinson's comment 22-Apr-2014 9:42 am

  • Comment on: What to do if you are referred to the NMC

    David Dickinson's comment 21-Apr-2014 8:49 pm

    Mine was worse than the last. I was referred by a forensic LD trust who I had repeatedly complained about for serious abuses for two years despite eight malicious "disciplinary" counter allegations..steadiy disproven. The trust was forced to hold an internal inquiry which I rejected as a cover-up then a second for which the CEO begrudgingly thanked me then whose deputy then fired me for accessing the abuse victims file for "too long" although it was a forensic hospital and legitimate. The trust referred me claiming that my practice was "out of date"..but the inquiry team had already commented upon just one good piece of work found in the forensic LD service...MINE. However the NMC took up the case with zeal and, revisiting my file predated original allegations to their disproven originals and created a new charge of stopping abuses without the victims permission (I kid you not). I proved trust managers who dismissed me to be "shy of the truth" despite being under NMC oath and other "witnesses" memories were sufficiently poor to need dementia screening. The NMC declared them and their testimonies as credible however but which was actually incredible. I proved that panellists consistently don't read case material and formally complained which was ignored. Their commercial solicitors case was replete with hugelyn obvious errors and no one noticed, case workers, panellists etc. Panellists chose not to question me when their QC was cross examining. I had already been subject to 18 months of "interim" conditions which is like working under hyper scrutiny and am now subject to a further 18 months. I have to write and submit a personal development plan explaining the importance of not reporting serious abuse without the victims consent and to submit regular accounts of how my practice is benefitting. I was suspended last year for months when I explained to my NMC case worker why I was leaving an abusive nursing home to work in a sister home (the home was closed for financial abuse). I was suspended by the NMC because one of my "conditions" stated that the home was where I worked despite being open and transparent with the NMC and describing my intentions and without any inkling of a problem. MY NMC substantive outcome stated that I used whistle blowing as an excuse and that I had ignored trust policies and procedures for making complaints. In fact my persistent formal complaints ran to 100's of pages which the NMC are aware of. The NMC is preoccupied with secrecy. Referring to patient A is one thing but "witness A"? when witnesses haven't even been asked whether they are prepared to consent. I am happy to identify myself. I met others in NMC waiting rooms who had their own compelling stories. I believe that there is something seriously wrong at the NMC. My full account can be found on twitter under "my blog".

  • Comment on: DH launches new controls on patient restraint

    David Dickinson's comment 6-Apr-2014 10:14 pm

    Its very easy to go round in circles..the absurdity of human existence and reality. Firstly..apologies to Sr Restraint instructor Mr Simpson of Rampton Hospital circa was of course Graham, not Bill. So where do we go from here? The box in the photo was a time-out cubicle that greeted the new team on walking into our new Behavioural Unit in 1983 and designed by the Sr Clinical Psychologist. Managers refused to throw it out despite us telling them that no one was going to be locked into that thing, so we did it..taking it apart and throwing it in the skip. We were nearly fired. Similar managers today would of course declare the box inhumane and point to prevalent opinion. Some don't only go with the flow but condemn everything with simplistic statements that suggests easy solutions to age old problems. The purpose of face down restraint was NOT to enable carers to relax whilst the patient gently asphyxiated. It was a precursor to standing and walking off under safe control, hopefully in a relaxed manner and away from the location where the initiating problem had occurred and with no additional control pressure being required because the aggressive 200lb 6' patient provoked by an issue beyond the means of simple social negotiation had opted to desist fighting because three ordinary female carers controlled his worst efforts with complete anxiety free professionalism. The other function of face down restraint was to communicate with the aggressor calmly whilst preventing them from focusing and escalating aggression towards arbitrarily targeted individuals and of course spitting which is not uncommon. The restraint coordinator would communicate calmly in their ear, establishing rapport and gently persuading the individual to desist whilst providing a breathing space for pulses to settle and for rage to disperse. Therefore, it was for a limited duration and had a clear purpose. It was not to give staff an extended break whilst using the patient as a convenient cushion. Standing someone from a laying back position is risking a kick and, with their head uncontrolled the means of visually targeting and delivering a bite or spit or the means to assess and consider a further aggressive action. Watch any marshal art and the only means of stopping a kick or punch is to "block" it which risks injury to both patient and carer and is therefore not an option and would be a clear abuse. Rising from a face down position enables the aggressors head to remain safely lowered until a quick assessment by the coordinator enables a signal to the other two carers that he or she is about to negotiate with the subject an imminent release contingent upon the continued desisting from injury risking behaviours.. Such releasing with a continuing calm aftermath is the objective. The objective is NOT to indulge the restraint skills of staff or to demonstrate who is dominant. What is perhaps of more concern is what happens next? Is it the seclusion room, intramuscular tranquilizer or both? The purpose of competent compassionate restraint has to be the quick effective return to aggression-free ordinariness perhaps ending better than it started. The mark of really great restraint competence is to conclude with laughter. After all, life's a gas, just hope its gonna last.

  • Comment on: DH launches new controls on patient restraint

    David Dickinson's comment 4-Apr-2014 3:12 pm

    QUIZ: Was it Cheech and Chong or Lavigna and Willis?

View all comments