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


The big question: do we need a new inquiry on whistleblowing?


It has been announced that Sir Robert Francis QC is to lead a review of how whistleblowers are treated in the NHS.

The former chair of the Mid Staffordshire Foundation Trust public inquiry has been asked by the government to consider what further action is necessary to protect NHS workers who speak out in the public interest.

It follows calls for a public inquiry into whistleblowing in the NHS by a number of high-profile whistleblowers and their supporters, including Patients First, a campaign group headed by former Great Ormond Street paediatrician Kim Holt, and GP and Private Eye journalist Phil Hammond.

Do you welcome this review?


Readers' comments (11)

  • michael stone

    Yes - any review, of any aspect of the NHS, that is lead by Sir Robert is likely to be 'a good thing'.

    And I hope he makes it clear, that 'protecting staff who have concerns' (instead of this 'you have a duty to raise concerns' stress, as of late) is where [the solution to] this one, needs to START from.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Not worth telling your university about how you have been treated as they do nothing. Tried it. Wouldn't bother again.
    No lessons learned there.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • seems to be a wide gap between uni and nhs. shouldn't they be working together so that they can provide what the nhs actually needs?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • On teh only but memorable occasion I came across ' an incident of concern' the whistleblowers career and personal life suffered very badly.

    The wrongdoer was invited to retire before proceedings of any kind could be instigated.

    Never forgotten it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • an inquiry which will actually lead to action. yet another heap of paper is fairly useless.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • who reads the reports on all of these inquires?

    any one read the 400 odd pages of the most recent reforms yet?

    I can think of better entertainment off duty!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Yes I think we do. I think society does because we all pay for it, it belongs to us and we are all on the receiving end of it at various points in our lives. But not for Tory ammunition purposes (Hunt et al). The fact that we have a system that needs whistleblowers needs changing, and that will only change when the people themselves change how they think and act. When the acquisition of power is usurped by collaboration and care is when I will notice a change.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Yes – This could be a very important whistleblowing inquiry for nurses and other health professionals who have the responsibility to raise concerns.

    An inquiry may finally recommend real change to current NHS HR governance systems, both in HR department policy and practice and real transparency at Board level with Non-Executive members, CQC, NHS England and Monitor. It may address the prevalence of NHS employers, HR and legal teams who too often turn patient safety or other public concerns into employment issues, ignore the concerns raised and victimise the person who raised the concerns. It may also recommend independent whistleblowing reviews be conducted without the involvement from local HR and Trust managers, who often ‘lead’ internal whistleblowing investigations to meet Trust’s interests and not whistleblowers.

    The only drawback of Sir Robert Francis’s whistleblowing review is that it is currently only an ‘independent review’ and not a full ‘public inquiry’. This may greatly limit the power and scope of Sir Robert Francis’s team to obtain documents or call for the attendance of persons to give evidence. This is crucial, if the final recommendations hope to ensure the protection of NHS employees who raise concerns or whistleblow in the future.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Most "whistle blowing" is associated with issues of patient safety and staffing.

    Crazy "management" decisions expose patients to risk.

    Those who raise concerns are, in turn at risk of being vilified by the "management" . Professionals who "challenge " management will have their career ruined.

    Check what happened to a Consultant Cardiologist who dared to "whistleblow"!

    All "whistleblowing " should be undertaken anonymously via the CQC.

    Do not place yourself at risk .

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • While I agree with you Jenny, unfortunately the CQC are still pretty useless and in- effective.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Show 1020results per page

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.