A DOCTOR who tried to raise the alarm about problems with Scotland’s flagship super hospital suffered post-traumatic stress as a result of the ordeal.
Dr Christine Peters, 45, said she became severely unwell after years of raising concerns with management about what she felt the problems were at the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital (QEUH).
Her colleague, now-retired Dr Penelope Redding, 69, was hospitalised with heart problems after she also battled to have her concerns heard.
Now both women have spoken exclusively to the Herald about the culture within NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (NHSGGC) and urgently called for change to ensure whistleblowers are listened to.
Dr Peters, a Clinical lead Consultant Microbiologist at the QEUH, said: “This is hard for me to say. I’ve had post-traumatic stress, I’ve been on antidepressants, I’ve had to take three months of work and had a loss of confidence, really as a result of this.
“We have to move forward though. It’s just not an option for the NHS to carry on in this ridiculous irrational manner. It is really self-defeating, and every policy that says,’We support whistleblowers’ is empty words unless we see concerns being raised and rapidly addressed, without any fault or any sort of impact on the [whistleblowers’] lives, their families, their livelihoods.
“”Until we get there we are completely deluding ourselves. The experience that I and my colleagues had is a measure of the impact doing something like this has on an individual in a extremely unsupportive environment, where even trying to talk about the fact that you feel targeted, you feel intimidated...That in itself becomes something that they appear to become aggressive about.
“So even in trying to raise these things...you are unsupported in that act itself.”
Dr Peters said she had “changed as a person” as a result of trying to raise concerns, adding: “It basically changes your life, and your family’s lives. There’s no downtime, you’re on edge the whole time. You try to distract from that, and it’s inevitable that they’re aware of it. You’re not able to support your parents,, not just your kids.
“I would say that I am hopeful, not confident, but I’m hopeful that that discussion post-Sturrock, post the Highland whistleblowers scandal, post- Covid will be to enable people to talk, and for health boards and hierarchy in the NHS, even higher than the boards, to get over themselves.
“Do not take every pointing out of an issue, as a personal insult to the entirety of the NHS. Focus on the dimensions of the problems that are being described, and don’t catastrophise them, and don’t make them into something that the person has not said.Don’t misrepresent them, because I think that is a very potent tool to try and disable what the whistleblowers say.”
Dr Peters started at the hospital in 2014, and began raising concerns through her manager in 2015. After years of receiving no proof that the concerns she had raised had been resolved, she and her colleague Dr Redding decided, along with another colleague, to begin the formal whistleblowing process to try and force action in 2017.
Dr Redding, who retired the following year, said she felt compelled to proceed with the whistleblowing as she was so worried about patient safety.
She also said she raised concerns about the hospital before it even opened, including with the then-chief executive Robert Calderwood, but claimed he “had no interest” in what she had to say as it was weeks before he retired in November 2015.
She explained: “As a whistleblower we were not supported and we were really treated as troublemakers right from right from the start. “
“We raised the formal whistleblowing process in September 2017, and that has been referred to as if that was the first [NHSGGC] heard of it, and they would say they took action immediately, but the fact is I went to directors and senior managers within the healthboard years before that happened.
“I am not blind to the obvious toll the ongoing pressures have taken at a very personal level on individuals.That’s one of the reasons why I continue to support whistleblowers. I could not walk away from my involvement in this, and I have said to the board, even since I retired, that I wish I could walk away from this but at the moment I don’t feel that I can.
“My family pleaded with me, and made me promise I would stop pursuing this. I broke my promise, then I ended up in coronary care in April of last year, because of the stress associated with all of this.
“Now I feel that by doing something, at least I have tried. I may not resolve it, I may not make a difference, but at least I had tried. And I think that was the least stressful option, and I think my family would now say that what what I’ve done is the right thing and that they’re proud of me.”
Dr Redding said that she and her colleagues discussed the impacts of raising concerns on patient confidence and trust with the hospital, and realise their actions have affected the public perception of the QEUH.
She explained: “I understand that speaking out has caused a loss in confidence to patients and their families in the hospital.
“We discussed that at every stage of the process but the overriding thing was that this is about patient safety in the long term. We had tried everything else within the board, and this was the only way we were able to go forward.
“What is absolutely critical though, is that the vast majority of patients are not exposed to high risks.
“What we said was there is an increased risk to a small number of patients that must be dealt with. These are very vulnerable patients, you can’t ignore that.
“There will be people out there who believe that their relative either suffered or passed away as a consequence of being in that hospital and that is not correct. Nobody should feel that the entire hospital is unsafe, that everyone is at risk. That is not true.”
Yesterday NHSGGC announced it would be launching a review of whistleblowing procedures and a whistleblowing champion, Charles Vincent, has been appointed to oversee the work.
It was also announced that the judge-led public inquiry into the QEUH scandal will begin on August 3.
A spokeswoman for NHSGGC was unable to respond before the Herald went to press, but today said: "We have always supported staff to speak up if they believe things are not working as they should, as this is an essential element of ensuring patient safety. All staff who raise concerns are protected to do so through our Speak Up and Whistleblowing policies. These enable staff to raise concerns confidentially and to have them investigated.
"We take all concerns raised through the NHSGGC Whistleblowing processes very seriously and action has been recommended in the majority of investigations.
"Such concerns were raised with us in regard to the QEUH and RHC. These were fully investigated by NHSGGC. The issues have also been investigated separately by the Independent Review into the QEUH and RHC.
"We regret staff have not felt supported to speak up. We continue to provide ongoing support to the whistleblowers and we are grateful to Professor Marion Bain and Professor Angela Wallace for their work on behalf of the Scottish Government to support the individuals and the wider team to develop a more supportive and inclusive culture in this area.
"We are currently reviewing Whistleblowing within NHS GGC to identify any actions required to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of the existing NHSGGC Whistleblowing system and to consider the impact of the new national standards on any issues identified.
"Our new non-Executive Whistleblowing Champion, Charles Vincent, will lead the review alongside our governance team.
"We remain committed to supporting our staff to raise concerns."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel