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

michael stone

michael stone

Recent activity

Comments (2795)

  • Comment on: Whistleblowing review finds no evidence of 'serious failings' at trust

    michael stone's comment 28-Nov-2014 1:31 pm

    'Miranda Carter, Monitor’s director of provider appraisal, said the review concluded there was no evidence of “serious failings of governance or culture at the trust”. However, according to their report, published today, the regulators did find that some staff felt “disengaged and unheard” by senior managers.' There are always questions, of what is meant by 'evidence': most regulators still seem to place a lot of stress on 'paperwork', but 'culture' isn't necessarily in line with [overt] paper-policy. If the staff were in reality being 'discouraged' from raising concerns, or their concerns were being 'ignored/downplayed', that might not be easy to see from policies, etc, but that would be the real-world reality of the situation.

  • Comment on: The big question: how confident are you handling complaints?

    michael stone's comment 26-Nov-2014 11:07 am

    Jenny Jones | 25-Nov-2014 3:06 pm Most people only complain, if they think there was something wrong - I agree, that everyone needs to work out if something was wrong, but saying 'I am sorry you believe' can be taken by the other person as implying that the issue was merely perception. 'Why do you think there was something wrong ?' is probably a better approach, I think.

  • Comment on: Fitness to practise cases should consider 'public confidence'

    michael stone's comment 26-Nov-2014 10:20 am

    'Public Confidence' is probably the wrong term, for this idea: there are very serious dangers, in terms of spin and cover ups (i.e. the opposite to 'transparency and openness) if 'public confidence' morphs into 'reputational damage', where the bosses of an organisation are the people who assess 'reputational damage'. While I support this general idea: 'The move is intended to provide a mechanism for the Nursing and Midwifery Council to sanction nurses who may be technically fit to practise but whose actions have damaged public confidence, including nurse managers who retain their registration but no longer work on the frontline regularly.' it should be described by a different term - something such as 'behaviour incompatible with [the objective of] the role' (which admittedly is a mouthful !).

  • Comment on: CQC to issue guidance on use of cameras to monitor care

    michael stone's comment 22-Nov-2014 1:07 pm

    The CQC did consult on this issue - presumably, a lot of the feedback was along the lines of 'in the end, I needed the filmed evidence to prove the poor care was happening'.

  • Comment on: Hospital to enforce seven-day 'eviction' policy to free up beds

    michael stone's comment 22-Nov-2014 1:05 pm

    This is one of the really complex 'perspective' ones, even if you set aside relatives who might not be 'well-intentioned'. The hospitals are under a lot of pressure to free-up beds, so want to discharge 'healthy-but-frail elderly patients' as quickly as possible - but the relatives of those patients, will not be keen on 'hastily transferring their elderly relative to an unsatisfactory care home, or perhaps back to a private house which needs adaption [or where a better support package, yet to be properly agreed, is needed]. The legal issues, are probably very 'messy' as well.

View all comments




Up to £58 per hour


Up to £58