Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
rodgerker  
#1 Posted : 18 February 2013 10:23:39(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
rodgerker

I read in the papers this weekend that the HSE have been asked to carry out further investigation following the publication of the Staffordshire Health Authority report.

1. Is this the right route, or is it the usual "if I can't get it any other way, I make a health and safety issue".
2. Will also be interesting to see what the FFI fees will be for this.

Rodger Ker.
Phillip Clarke  
#2 Posted : 18 February 2013 10:29:05(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Phillip Clarke

The HSE was criticised in the report, particularly about the failure to investigate. One of the recommendations is that perhaps the CQC should have responsibility for taking action in hospitals not the HSE.

Points 87 - 90 (page 94) and Chapter 13 (pages 1053 - 1094) of the report details this in, well, more detail!

In addition, following the report the Prime Minister has asked the HSE to explain why it has not prosecuted in some specific cases and that the HSE is possibly too distant from healthcare to effectively regulate this sector.
A Kurdziel  
#3 Posted : 18 February 2013 10:47:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

The parallel might be the rail industry where responsibility for safety has been transferred to the Rail Accident Investigation Branch from the HSE.
Andrew Bober  
#4 Posted : 18 February 2013 11:12:21(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Andrew Bober

A Kurdziel wrote:
The parallel might be the rail industry where responsibility for safety has been transferred to the Rail Accident Investigation Branch from the HSE.


Does seem a little befuddled. I suppose given fingers being pointed left-right-and-centre and the outrage sparked from the report it is naturally that question are being asked. I think we should keep a close on this as it appears to be setting up an arch for the HSE into the Health Service re. inspections which wasn’t really there before.
A Kurdziel  
#5 Posted : 18 February 2013 11:37:28(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

Thinking about this again, a thought has come across my mind. In most areas regulations still tends to be prescriptive, and basically if you follow the rules, even if someone dies, you are safe from prosecution. H&S though works on a goal setting agenda, with general duties established for employers based on doing everything you can, so far as reasonably practicable. (That is what Robens wanted in his original report way back when). This means it is easier to ‘get’ someone under H&S legislation rather than other regulations, hence the tendency to bring on H&S when nothing else will do, for example in the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes by the Metropolitan Police, where all the avenues for a prosecution where explored (including corporate manslaughter) and the CPS decided on a prosecution under section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
rodgerker  
#6 Posted : 18 February 2013 12:04:11(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
rodgerker

Each year the HSE Workplace Fatalities statistics include a section on "members of the public", this is usually suicides and trespassers on the railways.

Will the Staffordshire deaths now be included in these figures?

Rodger Ker
Ron Hunter  
#7 Posted : 18 February 2013 12:40:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

Who knows? Perhaps this might lead (via hand-over to the Police) to a first "proper" test of Corporate Manslaughter.
RayRapp  
#8 Posted : 18 February 2013 12:42:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Rodger, I'm sure the above is a rhetorical question...

It appears from the Staffordshire enquiry that it was not just the HSE who allowed these goings on to go under their radar. Whether the HSE should be the regulator for hospitals is a moot point. What I would say is that enquiries often result in wholesale changes and some would argue these are a knee jerk reaction. I recall a recommendation from the Cullen enquiry some years ago where the HMRI was split into three departments - ORR, RSSB and RAIB. I think it was a mistake and diluted the process of railway regulation.

BJC  
#9 Posted : 18 February 2013 15:01:22(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

IMHO the Govt dont want a functioning NHS or indeed a Welfare State. We head back to Dickensian times at a breath taking pace.
RayRapp  
#10 Posted : 18 February 2013 15:44:08(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

ron hunter wrote:
Who knows? Perhaps this might lead (via hand-over to the Police) to a first "proper" test of Corporate Manslaughter.


Ron, in your dreams.

I doubt we will see for a long time a prosecution of a large corporate entity and certainly not a publicly funded one.
Ron Hunter  
#11 Posted : 18 February 2013 17:05:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

Fanciful I know, truth seems to be a commodity in very short supply these days..........
johnmurray  
#12 Posted : 19 February 2013 06:01:42(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
johnmurray

Just these days ?
Truth has been in short supply in the political system since its inception, that it has now worked its way down to the bottom of the supply train is probably just gravity.
Anyway, now the bodies have been buried evidence is going to be scarce (although one suspects that cremation would have been the preferred "disposal" method)
HSE investigating hospitals ?
Please: They couldn't investigate the placement of a milk bottle on a doorstep.
Unfit, and unmanned, for purpose, is the most pleasant phrase I can use.
To be blunt about it, most of those who died from neglect and poor treatment were chronically, and even terminally ill, so would have died anyway. They just died faster.
The poor treatment of elderly in hospital has been chronicled for many decades.
None of this is any surprise to those in any way associated with the healthcare industry.
boblewis  
#13 Posted : 19 February 2013 10:27:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
boblewis

JohnMurray

Problem is that there is evidence that some would not have died at that point in time. We all die but it should not be speeded up by the neglect of others. Mid Staffs senior management was clearly dysfunctional judging from the report and they had no idea how bad things were. The other NHS trusts now named seem equally happy to simply learn from the past and forget the dead.

The truth is contained in the old bad joke - What is the difference between a hospital and a church. The church is the one that buries the hospitals mistakes!! Now days it seems that a report can be used to do the burying - We must learn from our mistakes - Yes BUT what about justice for the families and victims. In the end the taxpayer is paying for the mistakes of the Directors who are running incompetent trusts. Director disqualification under HASAWA would seem to be at least one thing that should be done following a simple section 3 prosecution plus whatever else can be brought to bear on the miscreants.

Bob
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.