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

Hospital criticised ahead of Baby P report

  • 3 Comments

Baby Peter could have been saved if managers at a hospital where he was treated had listened to fears raised by senior doctors more than a year before the toddler’s death, a consultant paediatrician has claimed.

Dr Kim Holt, who worked at St Ann’s Hospital in Haringey, north London, said she and three colleagues wrote an open letter detailing problems at the clinic in 2006.

They claimed that the service, run by Haringey with doctors employed by Great Ormond Street, was understaffed and had a “chaotic” appointment system which was a risk to patients.

Dr Holt said: “There was a very chaotic system of making appointments, there were difficulties with notes always being available. We had problems with our secretarial support, in that we didn’t have enough.

“As consultant you carry the responsibility for children in your care, we weren’t really involved in any way in decision making in how the services were developed. That was making us increasingly concerned about risk to patients.”

NHS London is set to publish a report on complaints made by Dr Holt against Great Ormond Street on Tuesday.

In February 2007 she was advised to take a month off by her GP and has not returned to her job since.

A statement from the hospital said that the NHS London report would largely support their version of events.

It said: “We understand that this independent report, after a thorough investigation, finds that there was no bullying, and no specific targeting or victimisation of staff, around raising concerns, or any other matter.

“The report finds that substantial efforts were made by the PCT and Great Ormond Street Hospital to resolve the issues raised. It does make some measured criticisms around some aspects of process which we will act on and learn from. Broadly the trust feels this report supports its view of events. The issue of workload of course is largely a matter of funding, over which we have little control.”

  • 3 Comments

Readers' comments (3)

  • well, i'm sure that makes everything ok then.
    i am sick to death of hearing weasel words spoken by some anonymous spokesperson trying to convince us that 'substantial efforts' were made to change things. we all know that the situation remains the same - no staff, no admin, but plenty of captains all scared witless of losing their jobs.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Yes, you just about summed it.

    At our place of place, our directors looking after our wards and clinics are not medically or nursing personnel but directors brought in to SAVE MONEY, MONEY MONEY.

    So, of course, do they care about patients or staff, NO just about their jobs and this means SAVING MONEY which will look for them and keep them in their jobs.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Patient centred nursing used to be the in-phrase when I was training in the 80's. Now I find this increasingly difficult to do because it conflicts with cost effective practice, money saving initiatives, under-resourced, not lack of funding but more like mis-spent adequate funding. Us nurses are piggy-in-the-middle, torn between our duty of care to the patient, but employed by penny pinching managers.

    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.