Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Our Speak Out Safely campaign is hit in the Midlands


Five more NHS organisations in the Midlands have backed our Speak Out Safely campaign to protect staff that raise legitimate concerns about safety.

They are Sherwood Forest Hospitals Foundation Trust, Worcestershire Acute Hospitals Trust, Shropshire Community Health Trust, Stoke on Trent Clinical Commissioning Group and Redditch and Bromsgrove Clinical Commissioning Group.

Susan Bowler, Sherwood Forest’s director of nursing and quality, said: “Quality patient care is our number one priority and our staff are best placed to identify those areas where care falls below the standards we expect.

“We want staff to feel comfortable to raise concerns about patient safety and quality of care. This is why we are backing the Speak out Safely campaign to demonstrate our commitment to a culture of openness.”

The Speak Out Safely campaign was launched by Nursing Times in March. As of last week, 57 NHS organisations had pledged to support the campaign.


Are you able to Speak Out Safely? Sign our petition to put pressure on your trust to support an open and transparent NHS.


Readers' comments (5)

  • michael stone

    As I've said before, more good news - but can we please see some samples of the policies (this is the NHS - so without a written policy, something doesn't exist) being created by these signers in order to support 'speaking out safely'.

    Devil in the detail - as always, so can we see some detail, please.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • michael stone | 22-Nov-2013 10:43 am

    Here Here, and even if there is a policy on paper the Management will ignore it, if it isn't convenient.Just watch them!

    Director's of nursing and quality are wont to babble Hot Air which sounds good on this subject, but it is seldom followed up by actions, in my vast experience of these people.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Backing what exactly? Like others have said: where's the meat and drink? We've had a photograph of a gaggle of nursing waving bits of paper with one promising to have a cup of tea with a dementia suffer - that's not really supporting whistleblowing is it?

    Has Emap (Guardian Group) actually thought this through? The NHS is awash with closets filled to bursting with skeletons and if one of your signatories turns out to be the next Mid-Staffs, NT is going to look very silly indeed.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I see nothing has changed at Mid-Staffs: back in the news again:

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • David Dickinson

    From David Dickinson 07799112138 (
    I see my former employer TEWV NHS MH/LD Trust has signed to SOS!! How curious given that they cynically suspended then constructed a ludicrous disciplinary case against me immediately following my formal complaints about THEIR institutional abuses and not one but two subsequent internal cover-up internal "inquiries" (when I rejected the firsts' findings which precipitated a second followed by a written "thankyou for bringing these matters to my attention" from the Trust CEO following publication then finally firing me following an unprecipitated computer-use audit, NOT for accessing the confidential information from one of the seclusion victims clinical files (which I had every right to as a direct carer) as originally charged but which had to be therefore dropped but finally, in my appeal against dismissal, wait for it..LOOKING FOR TOO LONG. Yes you heard that correctly. TEWV then referred to the NMC who have spent 18 months and £1000's AND £1000'S repeating the Trusts ORIGINAL PRE-FIRING CHARGES, NOT FINAL CHARGES plus cobbling together their own NEW charge (i.e. using my home computer to write out my original 2010 complaints following my cynical suspension when I complained about a small calm girl thrown into seclusion for nearly four hours, similarly calm on emerging (although understandably tearful) and my drug-free named patient, completely symptom-free prescribed full depression strength citalopram for non-existent "anxiety" on the last day of his two year detention plus a host of other matters via their "win-now-pay-later" external lawyer whilst I remain on "Conditions-of- Practice" , i.e. under what is effectively hyper-scrutiny "to protect the public" despite five "excellent" (in all categories) reports received during the period. Are the Trusts "work, as an alternative to suspension" arrangement and the NMCs "Conditions of Practice" arrangement primarily cynical opportunities to prompt meatier evidence via any little would-be-witness-to-your-corrective-aggression scumbag whose malpractices you might feel unable to continue avoiding challenging because the manager is equally problematic alongside his service culture? (one suspending manager didn't know why, during MY earlier medication assessment grapefruit isn't eaten in the NHS although he takes regular statins himself. When he couldn't find it in the BNF declared "If its not in here then it doesn't exist". I suggested checking out any accompanying leaflet). Having spotted many, many profound flaws in the NMC's (i.e.TEWV's) "case" against me I have as a consequence subsequently proven that £500 a-day NMC panellists, 1) do not read their own case material, and, 2) always leave panel decisions to the ever present sitting lawyer. Cases go on as in mine for months and months and months even before they are formally heard (I've had 5 hearings to discuss conditions) with all received written material unnecessarily duplicated. As the clever detective said, "watch who benefits". I think the "protecting the public" interest has resulted in the NMC becoming a playground for lawyers. I believe that the public would be better served by a regulator that simply regulates nursing based upon years of collective wisdom and experience and leaves public protection to the police and armed forces.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.