This is the Ninth in the Persecution Series, after The Persecution of Heretics, The Persecution of Vulnerable Adults, Harassment from the BBC to GMC, Harassment from Rolf Harris to James Coyne to Doctor Who, Persecution: Black Riders in the Shire, Persecution: Rumbles from Mordor, and third in the Suicide Series SUI-Cide in Betsi, SUI-Cide Trick or Treat.
Dr Higgo’s headache
I was supposed to be interviewed as part of a Serious Untoward Incident (SUI) review process on March 12 this year. The main interviewer was Robert Higgo. An email that morning said he had a headache and would have to cry off the interview. It was deferred to April 10.
On March 10 Robert Poole, who has a very close relationship with Robert Higgo (See Trick or Treat), had sent an interesting letter to Dr Makin, BCUHB’s Medical Director, and Mr Lang, a Board member. The letter was sent on Royal College of Psychiatrists’ headed notepaper. This was a month before I was interviewed.
Dear Matt and Geoff
“The SUI review is ongoing, but Dr Higgo has formally expressed concern that Professor Healy’s practice and behaviour in the case fell short of GMC’s standards, set out in Good Medical Practice, on a large number of different counts”.
Dr Poole extraordinarily goes on in the following paragraph to state:
“I do not hold an enmity towards him”.
He neglects to mention that I had written his citation for a merit award (2007) but I had to decline to be an extern in his appointment to a Chair because of conflict of interest (2009). Subsequently he had attempted to purloin research funds and posts from my department (2012), and labelled me in a book published close to the day this letter was written as essentially the world’s leading threat to orthodox psychiatry, while stating here:
“I believe I have no conflicts of interest in this matter”.
Dr Poole is the Lead for the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ Invited Review Service and at this point when dealing with the Healy issue letters from him are in essence being written by a College committee.
Let the right one in
You’re safe from vampires unless you let them in (See the movie – Let the Right One In).
The College Review Service came to North Wales at my instigation in the first instance. The push for a College review from my colleagues and I came from the fact that it seemed to be the only possible way to get an independent review of a management that we thought was at risk of destroying a good service and badly compromising patient safety.
None of us had any inkling Dr Poole was so involved in the service, or we would never have gone down this route.
The reviewers came to North Wales where they missed the fact there were 35 nurses and doctors who had blown the whistle on management, and interviewed none of them.
They missed the fact that there were two ward managers who had just been reinstated after an intervention from Welsh Government, having been three months before being summarily marched out of the Hergest Unit on the back of safety concerns hinging on incidents that appear never to have happened. They interviewed neither of them.
They missed a chance to catalogue a new and egregious abuse of employment law.
But the Reviewers interviewed Dr Poole, presumably as a disinterested voice on the state of affairs in North Wales, and interviewed previous reviewers that we had objected to on the grounds that they were as transparent as one of the banks of fog that can descend on North Wales.
They also found time to interview someone who essentially concocted a story about an event involving me. The so called event had happened on August 2, over two months earlier. This person was not present for the supposed event. The person had very clear motives to invent an event.
What was invented was entirely improbable but the College reviewers seem to have swallowed the invention hook, line and sinker. Several months later they appear to have developed cold feet and suggested Dr Healy’s version of the event should be sought – but it never was.
Instead, Dr Higgo was invited to conduct an SUI. No-one seems to have known whether they were SUI-ing CASE A or SUI-ing the August 2 non-event. It perhaps didn’t seem to matter as Dr Higgo appears to have written his SUI-Cide note a month before he interviewed me.
Reading my own obituary
On July 15 I was made aware there was a document that raised concerns about me. I got to see this on July 16. It was an undated and unsigned report slightly over 5 pages with Dr Higgo’s name at the end. It’s disjointed and in some places makes points out of the blue – almost as though points made in an earlier draft were awaiting incorporation but “send” was pressed too soon.
The reason that I got to see it was that Dr Makin, the Medical Director, having already referred me to the GMC without me knowing, now, after the fact for some reason, had fixed up a meeting with Dr Birch, an Assistant Medical Director, where I was going to be given the Higgo SUI-Cide note and apparently also be given a chance to respond to it.
Based on my response, Dr Makin would then, it was implied, decide if I needed to be referred to the GMC.
I took this at face value unaware that a referral to the GMC had already been made, unaware the Higgo report had been written ages before he met me.
Aside from the multiple levels of bad faith here, there are questions as to why no-one in the Medical Director’s office foresaw the likely mess
- That Betsi would be unable to hand over the transcripts from all the people interviewed.
- That Betsi wouldn’t be able even to hand over a list of names of those interviewed.
- That Betsi was breaching the first rule of critical incident reviews.
- If a referral was made to the GMC would Betsi be able to hand over the transcripts and if not was it possible to have a fair process.
- If GMC got the transcripts could they let me see them and if not was it possible to have a fair process.
If Dr Makin wanted to review my practice, this was not the way to do it. To mess up so badly suggests either incompetence, a profound desire to get even, or instructions from higher up the food-chain. Explicit instructions might have come from above. Or did Drs Makin or Higgo over-read the unhappiness of those above – just as the courtiers who decided to rid Henry II of a turbulent priest did?
Do any powers that might have interfered have the ability to squash due process?
The SUI Cide note
First there was nothing in the SUI Cide Note that indicates that anything I did contributed to what happened in CASE A. It concedes my diagnosis was right. It doesn’t argue with the treatment. There has been no complaint from the family or the coroner. The family have in fact joined me in complaining about what has been left out.
There is a string of vexatious issues covering themes that arise roughly in the order below – more details on some of these will be deferred to a later date in the interests of keeping the reader engaged with the whodunnit question.
- Dr Higgo’s view of Dr Healy
- The presentation of the report in pre-GMC complaint format
- The Off-Label use of Medication
- Dr Healy’s Failure to map out Risk Management strategies
- Dr Healy acting as the Responsible Clinician for CASE A and B
- The Pova Meeting
- Dr Healy’s input to the Roslin CMHT
- CASE A’s Medical Conditions and Prior Treatment
- The place for the Mental H Act and Mental Capacity Acts in this case.
Dr Higgo’s view of Dr Healy
Dr Higgo makes a point of saying that the supporting material for views he is offering about me is contained in the chronology and witness statements.
In terms of the witness statements, having reviewed the statements of those interviewed who know me, there is no evidence from the witness statements of those not part of the management system for the Higgo claims.
Basing a general view of someone on the chronology of one case, and an incomplete set of records, would seem either foolhardy, borne from a pre-existing bias or both.
Dr Higgo concedes the case was complex and on top of that difficult and grudgingly accepts that I may have got the diagnosis right, implying others didn’t, before going on to claim on the basis of one interview that “he appears to have considered it only necessary to consult his own views”.
These views were expressed in a document designed it would seem to get me referred to the GMC. The fact that such a document was produced is at odds with the wording of the invitation to the interview, as indicated, namely that this was not a review of my practice.
This was manifestly not a suitable process to review anyone’s practice. Whatever impressions were garnered by Dr Higgo should not have been put to another purpose – as they have been.
Finally, Dr Higgo should have declared his conflicts of interest before interviewing me. He should definitely have declared them to Dr Makin before producing this document.
General Medical Council (GMC) complaint format
Weirdly Dr Higgo’s report refers to various clauses in a GMC Good Medical Practice document in a manner that seems a deliberate attempt to tee up a GMC referral.
The Good Medical Practice document is an approximately 3,000 word pamphlet. None of the issues mentioned in it are tackled in detail. It sets out the principles of good practice not the thresholds at which someone becomes unfit to practice.
As mentioned before I got to see the Higgo document, Dr Makin had made an approach to the GMC without asking me whether there was any other side to the story. On the kindest of interpretations, Dr Makin appears to have been duped in the manner intended.
But there are all sorts of other issues that Dr Makin might be trying to cover up.
CASE A throws up hugely important healthcare issues that are issues for BCUHB rather than GMC.
These include
- The specter of illegal Deprivations of Liberty triggered by the use POVA with in all likelihood hundreds of people being illegally held in hospitals across the UK because of POVA
- A potentially illegal use of Section 5 (2) of the Mental Health Act
- Aside from illegal detentions, there are profound consent and other issues thrown up by this case as regards POVA procedures
- A serious failure to ensure this patient had appropriate treatment – a matter of concern to the family.
- The patient had to suffer intensely humiliating input at the hands of some of those involved – again a matter of concern to the family
- The wreckage of an SUI process and other points noted through this response.
- An attack on someone who according to Betsi Whistleblowing policies should be protected
Only Betsi can tackle these issues. They are not a matter for GMC. There isn’t a body of the great and the good out there who can do the job for the health board.
To be continued.
Betsi – BCUHB – Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board
Dr Matt Makin, Medical Director BCUHB
Dr Paul Birch, Assistant Medical Director West
Dr Giles Harborne, Chief of Staff, Mental Health Clinical Programme Group (CPG)
Mary Burrows, Former CEO BCUHB
Geoff Lang, Former Acting CEO BCUHB
Dr Robert Poole – Consultant Psychiatrist Wrexham
Dr Robert Higgo – Consultant Psychiatrist Wrexham
How likely that the 35 whistle blowers, the 2 re-instated Charge nurses and the family members of patient (Case A) will go public ??
Turn up the heat on BCUHB —
Sinead
There was an investigation of the 35 whistleblowers complaints conducted by Robin Holden but this was brushed beneath the carpet. Looking for an RH report I came across this which reads very like what the RH report must have looked like – except in this case RH is Royal Hull –
David
David
David,
I haven’t a clue who Robin Holden is or Royal Hull, for that matter– but in my *case* the investigation of the whistleblowers complaints was performed by the regulatory/licensing board– to whom the complaints were directed. The administrators of the psychiatric unit responded with a *corrective action plan*. I was privy to this plan as I was on record, not an anonymous complainant. BUT, not privy to the actual findings of the investigation, though it was clear that at least one violation was cited from my complaint and those of several anonymous whistleblowers.
*Independent Consultants* were brought in to assess the overall management of the unit, as per the *corrective action plan*. Their recommendations were shared with staff via a document prepared by the administrators and managers of the psychiatric unit– NOT the original documented findings. Management proceeded in a superficial manner– eventually ignoring ALL of the major problems cited by the consultants.
The whistleblowers were targeted by management in a most unsavory manner–(but not original, as the methods were exactly as you described with regards to the 2 nurses who were investigated and dismissed for incidents that seemed to never have occurred). We [nurses] appealed to the regulatory board and went up the chain of command in the hospital seeking the *protection* we expected, as per written policies of both the hospital and the regulatory board. No protection was forthcoming–
Soon after our year-long agonizing ordeal ,we learned that the key member of the regulatory board, director of the specific psychiatric services provided by this unit, was– drum roll please, the original chief of psychiatry for this specialized unit– some 16 years prior to this incident.
The window of opportunity for *going public* closed- we were labeled *disgruntled employees*– and for the most part, it is Business as usual on this psychiatric unit–
These Significant, too similar to be called coincidental, *unsavory* incidents occurring in academic medical settings- (SUI’s)– need to be widely publicized, imo– . It is the only logical recourse, if we are to uphold our duty to care for and protect the vulnerable patients we are being forced to abandon.
Sinead
You are either a team player or you’re not, you are with us or you’re against us. There is no room for dissent in the corporate world, no room for opinions. The company man is the one who succeeds while the experienced and knowledgeable are just the old dinosaurs who can’t accept the change.“The one or two noisy voices” will be dealt with.
The NHS is finished, and it appears to me that people like Dr Makin and his like are in place to oversee the process – the sharks are coming and they are making sure there is plenty of blood in the water. No one really wants this except the transnational corporations, but then they are the only ones who’s opinion matters these days. The rest of us are just uniformed idiots, little different than cattle.
Some brave (or naive) docs and nurses may fight for what’s right, but they are in for a hell of time over the next few years. The only people who can really do anything about it are too busy with their head stuck in an i-device to even notice what’s happening – that would be all of us of course. The ones who occasionally lift their eyes from their smart phone just think that the NHS is hopelessly inefficient (because they read it in a news App) and that these changes are desperately needed. Few can see that box ticking managers, overpriced private contractors, billions blown on barely useful modern drugs and obscene agency staff wages are sucking the whole thing dry.
We can all look forward to a future of more bogus diagnosis, unnecessary scans, tests, medicines and procedures to correct our ever expanding list of diseases which are apparently caused by our corrupted DNA and lazy lifestyles and have absolutely nothing to do with the huge list of toxins and non-foods we consume everyday, our agricultural practices, pollution, family breakdown, inequality and poverty or anything else for that matter.
Well, to give Dr Poole his credit, he does say poverty has something to do with mental illness – I wonder how much time and money was spent coming to that ground breaking conclusion? What’s next? Breaking News – researchers find that being in a depressing situation can lead to depression!
Those medical professionals without morals or those who follow authority without question can look forward to nice financial incentives and promotions for embracing the system, and we can all look forward to more tax going to transnational corporations. Plenty goes to them already of course, apart from bailing out too big to fail banks and embracing austerity so we can pay debts to billionaire hedge funds, transnational companies like Sedexo, Serco, G4S and many others are already ripping you off in Schools, Universities, Police stations and government offices all across the country. It sucks but its happening… unless we all do something crazy like have a Russell Brand style revolution (which ain’t gonna happen).
Neil,
I’m thinking a *human revolution* needs to commence– the fundamental reorientation of all of us humans to rational thought and concern for our fellow human beings.
Specific, direct actions based on the fundamentals of *business* must be employed. We are not powerless to evoke criminal justice proceedings or provide full public disclosure of the M.O. of corporate health care.
Please consider:
1) Scamming the public ( unscientific paradigm of *care*), that causes risk of harm and death- for obscene profits, is illegal– in developed countries.
2) The *market* for this business is vastly ignorant of #1–
In every instance of authoritarian misuse of power, there is tacit permission granted via a willingness to depend on authority.
The authority brokers are the minority…
There is nothing crazy about revoking our permission to have our suffering exploited for profit–
It sounds very much as if the pharmaceutical companies are fighting back through whatever means………
That was my first thought too, no way regulatory boards and what not would go through all this trouble unless cohearsed by someone.
And Big Pharma would certainly jump for joy if they could find some way to miscredit dr. Healy.
But then I have had a change of mind, I’ve started to Think that this is how boards and supervision works.
Smallmindedness and only a smokescreen for those inside the boards to go after and attack people with attitude and guts to oppose.
It still amazes me how doctors and professors are able to fight on such a “sandpit”-level.
Isn’t it the first thing they shove in your face when they become academics, to have higher moral, ethics and standards than the next guy?
People who say their “responsibilities” as academics are what justifies their high salary?
Big Pharma has access to many groups and through those groups into professionals. Someone, somewhere thinks they are helping their cause……. paranoid, definitely not!
Sadly, we are seeing the behavior of psychiatrists post “Pharmaggedon” reflecting a choice they have made to deny all of the evidence, scientific and documentary, that the marketing strategies of Big Pharma were not just clever, they are deadly.
Sadly we are witnessing the decline of all standards once proudly associated with academic medical centers, whose leaders have cashed in their integrity, morals and ethics for all that Big Pharma has bank rolled for them. Their *high-ER* salaries are secured by their decision to continue to sell their credentials- use of their names and standing within the academic community who are gaining through trickle down economics.
This *new order*- corporate health care., could not have begun and cannot continue to flourish without the pivotal role played by those who wield *the pen*
that turns prescription pads into gold for Big Pharma.
This is not a battle amongst ego driven academics and the regulatory boards and power brokers in university medical centers. There is no dialogue, debate or even the hint of an academic discussion about THAT which is forced down our throats, waged between *academics*.
This is an ominous sign. The management and supervision practices that have set the stage to dispose of Dr. Healy and those who share his dedication to protect patients, are tactics of those who have developed a depraved indifference to human life– and have been honed in the some very auspicious universities.
It is an ominous sign for psychiatry and Big Pharma– having foolishly targeted the foremost authority on their transgressions, the minions of Sauron have brought about this golden opportunity–
One Ring to rule them all
One Ring to find them
One Ring to bring them all-
Out of the darkness-
Beside him.
There may come a day when the courage of men is gone and fellowship is destroyed by betrayal– BUT,
that is NOT THIS DAY !!
Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities Can Make You Commit Atrocities
Voltaire, (1694-1778)
David, what you are describing is the commonplace way of dealing with whistle blowers. You are finding that all the supposed independent minds are well chosen yes men or women following a gravy train. Try to get as much information as you can that might be relevant. Record conversations etc.. if only to help with your record keeping. However note that covert recorded conversations are now being accepted in employment tribunals. Persist at getting any communications in which your name is mentioned etc.. Best of luck.