Charity: Stoke Mandeville hospital staff concerned over safety

Bucks Free Press: Charity: Stoke Mandeville hospital staff concerned over safety Charity: Stoke Mandeville hospital staff concerned over safety

HEALTH bosses have reacted with shock after a charity announced it is building a dossier of evidence about risks to patient safety at Stoke Mandeville hospital.

Independent disability charity BuDS said officials had approached it in recent weeks in confidence with serious concerns about patient safety.

But hospital chiefs accused the organisation of being irresponsible.

Bucks Healthcare, in charge of the hospital, said in a statement: “We are both shocked and concerned to learn from the Bucks Free Press that Andrew Clark of BuDS is encouraging local people to contact the charity direct rather than our organisation with issues about care in Stoke Mandeville Hospital. Also that BuDS is allegedly in receipt of “concerns about patient safety” of which we are unaware.

“Patient safety and clinical quality is our utmost priority and we work hard at being an open organisation that listens and responds to all feedback. We have had no direct contact from Mr Clark and will be in touch with BuDS today to encourage the immediate sharing of any specific information with us.

“In light of the scrutiny the NHS is currently under, it feels irresponsible of BuDS to potentially worry patients by hinting at issues in this way while keeping the Trust in the dark. We will again be reminding all our staff of their duty of candour and the many ways in which they can raise concerns if they have them.

"We would also like to remind anyone externally that we strongly encourage direct contact about issues so that we can take action on their behalf.”

The Charity stated after receiving alarming reports from various sources at Stoke Mandeville, it had decided to build a dossier to send to the Care Quality Commission.

Andrew Clark, Chair of the BuDS Trustees said: “In the last few weeks, a number of sources at Stoke Mandeville hospital have approached BuDS in confidence, expressing serious concerns about patient safety at the hospital. These concerns range across many departments and areas of clinical practice.

“According to some sources, these serious issues have been raised internally with senior managers at Stoke Mandeville hospital, only to be frustratingly ignored. In these circumstances, remembering the incidents at Stafford, BuDS has decided to build a dossier of evidence with the intention of submitting it to the Care Quality Commission.

“I need to stress that BuDS is looking for specific ‘hard’ evidence we can present to the CQC, such as details of a situation where patient safety is at risk or compromised through lack of resources or a bad clinical or administrative system.”

The charity said all information will be treated in absolute confidence and details of individuals or information which might identify them will not be released.

Mr Clark said: “Anyone - patient, relative or staff - who comes forward will have their identity protected even within the BuDs organisation, or evidence can be sent anonymously via our website.”

Comments (4)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:02am Tue 5 Mar 13

manorman says...

Unfortunately your hospital keeps sweeping concerns under the carpet and in the wake of the Jimmy Saville scandal it would be good if an independent organisation actually did do some investigation. If you guys are confident that your hospital is achieving the highest standard what have you to worry about? If its not why ?.
I think sometimes its easier to see into the goldfish bowl than see out.
You should welcome BuDS taking some of the workload off of the hospital.If there is problems isn't it best that the truth is out there rather than it being covered up? Or would you rather keep the problems away from the general public and deal with them " on the quiet" . We would rather you not because we have to bring our families to you for potentially life changing reasons. Regards AJ
Unfortunately your hospital keeps sweeping concerns under the carpet and in the wake of the Jimmy Saville scandal it would be good if an independent organisation actually did do some investigation. If you guys are confident that your hospital is achieving the highest standard what have you to worry about? If its not why ?. I think sometimes its easier to see into the goldfish bowl than see out. You should welcome BuDS taking some of the workload off of the hospital.If there is problems isn't it best that the truth is out there rather than it being covered up? Or would you rather keep the problems away from the general public and deal with them " on the quiet" . We would rather you not because we have to bring our families to you for potentially life changing reasons. Regards AJ manorman
  • Score: 6

9:12am Tue 5 Mar 13

QualityCare4all says...

Certainly patients with concerns should inform the Hospital first. There are other avenues for raising concerns as well. The Local Involvement Network, soon to become Healthwatch Buckinghamshire.
Patients could talk to their local councillors.
Patients can talk to their local GPs and the new Clinical Commissioning Groups.
There is a website called Patients Opinion that feeds back concerns to hospitals.
However some people may feel happier in using a local charity to collect all the information together. It is important that the charity does such activity properly, transparently and in collaboration with the hospital.
What are they going to do with the information?
Do they have any contacts with the hospital and official organisations?
Certainly patients with concerns should inform the Hospital first. There are other avenues for raising concerns as well. The Local Involvement Network, soon to become Healthwatch Buckinghamshire. Patients could talk to their local councillors. Patients can talk to their local GPs and the new Clinical Commissioning Groups. There is a website called Patients Opinion that feeds back concerns to hospitals. However some people may feel happier in using a local charity to collect all the information together. It is important that the charity does such activity properly, transparently and in collaboration with the hospital. What are they going to do with the information? Do they have any contacts with the hospital and official organisations? QualityCare4all
  • Score: -1

9:17am Tue 5 Mar 13

QualityCare4all says...

There are good reasons why some people do not want to go through the formal channels that the hospital offers. Often they feel they get a patronising , holding letter, saying that the trust has made changes and will leanr from the incident.
People really want an explanation and to find out what is changing as a result of their decision to 'put their head above the parapet'. The feedback in the letters they get from the hospital are not good enough.
There are good reasons why some people do not want to go through the formal channels that the hospital offers. Often they feel they get a patronising , holding letter, saying that the trust has made changes and will leanr from the incident. People really want an explanation and to find out what is changing as a result of their decision to 'put their head above the parapet'. The feedback in the letters they get from the hospital are not good enough. QualityCare4all
  • Score: 1

6:58pm Tue 5 Mar 13

Joe Ordinary says...

Mr Clark states: “I need to stress that BuDS is looking for specific ‘hard’ evidence we can present to the CQC, such as details of a situation where patient safety is at risk or compromised through lack of resources or a bad clinical or administrative system.” If such 'hard' evidence is available and is presented to the Trust then the Trust cannot - and I can't imagine would - respond with 'a patronising, holding letter saying that the Trust has made changes and will learn from the incident' as is suggested in communications above.

In these circumstances the Trust would be obliged to respond specifically to the 'hard' evidence being presented.

What does anybody feel can / will be gained by undertaking action without advising the Trust of the action which they are undertaking.

Does anybody feel that the Trust is so powerful that it could prevent the action being undertaken?

Or does anybody want to imply that the Trust Management would want to act in such a malevolent manner?

Sadly out Trust is, unsurprisingly, not perfect and it certainly fails to involve Patients and the Public in its decision-making processes in the manner mandated by existing Legislation but I refuse to believe that either Management, Clinical or other personnel at the Trust have any wish to provide anything other that the best service which they can provide within the limitations of their resources and the demands placed upon them.
Mr Clark states: “I need to stress that BuDS is looking for specific ‘hard’ evidence we can present to the CQC, such as details of a situation where patient safety is at risk or compromised through lack of resources or a bad clinical or administrative system.” If such 'hard' evidence is available and is presented to the Trust then the Trust cannot - and I can't imagine would - respond with 'a patronising, holding letter saying that the Trust has made changes and will learn from the incident' as is suggested in communications above. In these circumstances the Trust would be obliged to respond specifically to the 'hard' evidence being presented. What does anybody feel can / will be gained by undertaking action without advising the Trust of the action which they are undertaking. Does anybody feel that the Trust is so powerful that it could prevent the action being undertaken? Or does anybody want to imply that the Trust Management would want to act in such a malevolent manner? Sadly out Trust is, unsurprisingly, not perfect and it certainly fails to involve Patients and the Public in its decision-making processes in the manner mandated by existing Legislation but I refuse to believe that either Management, Clinical or other personnel at the Trust have any wish to provide anything other that the best service which they can provide within the limitations of their resources and the demands placed upon them. Joe Ordinary
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree