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

DH outlines next steps for NHS whistleblowing 'guardians'

  • 2 Comments

Trusts should not delay in appointing proposed new whistleblowing champions if they feel confident to do so, despite the absence of formal guidance on the new role, according to the government.

The “freedom to speak up guardians” were among a number of recommendations made by Sir Robert Francis earlier this year following his independent review of how whistleblowers are treated in the NHS.

“If trusts feel confident to appoint their guardian without this guidance, they should not wait for the guidance to be published”

Department of Health

His report, the Freedom to Speak Up Review, also proposed a national version of this role – called the independent national officer – be appointed to oversee the improvements in creating open reporting cultures within trusts.

Results from a consultation by the Department of Health on how to implement the new “freedom to speak up guardians” found there was “strong support” for national approach to the role, such as having a standard job specification and training.

There was also “significant support” for the role to be either shared or to sit within a team, according to the consultation results, which were based on 106 respondents.

“The reasons given were that the role could become overwhelming or stressful for just one person due to both volume of work and the nature of the concerns,” said the government in its response document, called Learning not Blaming.

“It was felt that sharing the role could ensure that the responsibility of the role does not sit with one person,” it said.

However, the Department of Health concluded that it was for the independent national officer, once appointed, to decide what national guidance was required and what factors need to be taken into account when recruiting to the local guardian role.

“If trusts feel confident to appoint their guardian without this guidance, they should not wait for the guidance to be published. Any appointments should be made within the principles set out in the Freedom to Speak Up review,” said the DH.

“We would expect the Freedom to Speak Up guardian… to be appointed by the chief executive of the organisation to act in a genuinely independent capacity”

Department of Health

Meanwhile, the consultation found the majority of respondents were in full support of the independent national officer role being hosted by the Care Quality Commission, as suggested by Sir Robert and with which the DH agreed.

The DH also considered whether the Freedom to Speak Up guardians should report to the board of the organisation that appointed them, or directly to the independent national officer.

“We are of the view that we would expect the Freedom to Speak Up guardian, as recommended in the Freedom to Speak Up report, to be appointed by the chief executive of the organisation to act in a genuinely independent capacity,” it said.

“The Freedom to Speak Up guardian would raise concerns with the trust’s chief executive or the board. However, we recommend the Freedom to Speak Up guardian should be able to raise concerns with the Independent National Officer if they have lost confidence, or consider good practice has not been followed, in how the organisation was handling concerns,” added the DH.

The CQC should consult this summer on how the independent national officer role will be implemented and should appoint someone to the role by December, said the DH.

It also proposed that Health Education England produce guidance on what training will be needed for the Freedom to Speak Up Guardian role, along with its development of a curriculum for NHS organisations on training around raising concerns.

More widely, the DH has asked NHS England to produce specific guidance by September for primary care organisations on how to implement the recommendations in the Freedom to Speak Up report.

 

  • 2 Comments

Readers' comments (2)


  • This model of Freedom to Speak Up Guardians is bluntly, window dressing. A swift look at the small print will tell you that

    1) the National Guardian will have no binding powers

    2) the National Guardian will have no powers to scrutinise individual cases, only to have a mild word with trusts who are reported to be mistreating whistleblowers

    This has no hope of preventing the kind of determined bullying and corruption by the worst trusts, and is a waste of time and money in good Trusts.

    Oh, and by the way, there isn't actually any evidence for the model. See:

    http://sharmilachowdhury.com/2015/06/21/critique-of-francis-model-of-trust-appointed-guardians/

    Until parliament sees fit to give whistleblowers a truly independent body that isn't under the Department of Health's thumb, and legislates much more robustly to protect whistleblowers, the same scandals will continue to unfold.

    Lord McFall recently asked government to impose a specific legal duty of care on employers with regard to staff who raise concerns. That would be an excellent start.


    Those who are interested in progressive law reform might also wish to take a peek at Edna's Law by the charity Compassion in Care:

    https://www.change.org/p/protect-the-protectors-with-edna-s-law-need-one-law-for-all-whistleblowers




    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • whitehall and co are still just keeping busy and avoiding sensible outcomes.. too many accountants who are clueless re care models?

    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.