Freedom to Care Return to General INDEX Return to Nursing IANE Index
Charge Nurse GRAHAM PINK Blows Whistle
on nursing under-staffing
| Pink on Price of Truth | Pink Responds to Prof Vinten |
Graham Pink was a charge nurse working in care of the elderly wards on night duty in Stepping Hill Hospital, Stockport. After two years of unsuccessfully raising concerns with his managers he decided to go public. He reported how understaffing caused inadequate care, and was dismissed in Sept. 1991 for 'breaching confidentiality'. (See UK 'Guardian (Society)' 11 April 1990). The regulatory body for nurses, the UKCC, rejected the idea that he had breached confidentiality, but this did not stop his employers. His case attracted wide publicity in the UK media, and a national appeal fund to fight his case raised tens of thousands of pounds. In the end the NHS Trust settled just before the industrial tribunal. (Graham Pink was a director of Freedom to Care until early 1999.)
In the same period Dr Helen Zeitlin, a consultant haematologist at the Alexandra Hospital, Redditch, UK was also disciplined for speaking out about nursing shortages, and was made redundant in February 1991 by West Midlands R.H.A. A government (Dept of Health) professional hearing, held in public in August 1992 vindicated Zeitlin, and the minister concerned (Virginia Bottomley) ordered Zeitlin's reinstatement. (Subsequently a number of top managers involved resigned or 'left': the Chair of R.H.A., Chair of District H A., and the District General Manager hospital.)
GRAHAM PINK - A VICTORY FOR NURSES, SAYS QC
(Lincoln's Inn, London, June 1993)
John Hendy QC made the following statement to an industrial tribunal on behalf of Graham Pink, the Stockport nurse sacked following his complaints about inadequate care:
"By submitting to an Order that Graham Pink was unfairly dismissed the Stockport Health Authority have conceded the point at issue in this case and the Tribunal will make it. order that Mr Pink was unfairly dismissed in accordance with his claim lodged with the Tribunal on 11th December 1991. The H.A. imply that the reason is that the costs of further hearing or unacceptable. It is a matter of very great regret to Mr Pink that this concession could not have been made months ago before they had spent tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money in attempting to defend the indefensible. When at the opening of the case on 15th March the H.A. offered in open correspondence to pay Mr Pink £16,336 and a contribution to his costs if he would drop the case, it was made clear to the H.A. that money was not the issue. Mr Pink sought admission of the fact that he had been unfairly dismissed. The H.A. refused then to concede that fact and went on to spend two weeks fighting a hopeless case.
In those two weeks one witness was called on behalf of the H.A. The cross examination of this witness made clear how unfair was Mr Pink's dismissal. The cross examination showed that in August 1999 Mr Pink, a night nurse on the geriatric wards of Stepping Hill Hospital, wrote the first of a series of lengthy and articulate letters to the hospital authorities setting out his experience of the shortage of nurses there that was affecting patient care. The evidence revealed that in October 1999 an investigation was called for but no one was asked to carry it out until February 1990. A report was made in May 1990 and a further report in August 1990. Had the H.A. not evaded today's hearing by admitting unfair dismissal, the person who made those reports was the next witness to be cross examined about the deficiencies in those investigations which led her apparently to the complacent conclusion that staffing levels were 'adequate'.
The evidence revealed by cross examination in the first two weeks of the Tribunal showed that the alleged main ground for Mr Pink's dismissal was that he was responsible for an article in the local paper in July 1990 highlighting lack of staffing. This, it was alleged, constituted breach of patient confidentiality. But the evidence showed that by then nothing had been done about staffing levels and the investigations into it were kept secret from Mr Pink. By then he had pursued every other possible avenue open to him including writing to every level of management right up to the Secretary of State for Health. He was not favoured with any positive response. More significantly it was admitted in cross examination by the H.A. witness that Mr Pink was responsible for the publication of similar material highlighting lack of nurses in the Guardian on 11th April 1990 and the Nursing Times on 27th June 1990. In neither case had the H.A. suggested that these publications might have constituted a disciplinary offence by Mr Pink, still less was any mention made of 'breach of patient confidentiality'.
It is plain that the real reason Mr Pink was sacked was because, having failed to remedy the matter internally, he complained publicly about lack of nurses. Criticism is something the H.A. was not prepared to tolerate. So it sacked him. Now, as Mr Pink sees it, to avoid further damaging cross examination it has conceded unfair dismissal.
The H.A. protest that their admission of unfair dismissal is on the grounds of a 'technical flaw in procedure', but which of the myriad flaws in procedure revealed by their own witness has not been made clear. What is clear though is that by admitting procedural unfairness, the unfairness of sacking Mr Pink on a trumped-up charge for blowing the whistle is made yet more culpable: they have simply rubbed salt in the wound.
The H.A., in conceding the maximum possible award (£11,199), has thereby conceded that no reduction should be made to reflect any blameworthiness on the part of Mr Pink. It could do nothing else.
As stated, Mr Pink refused the offers of large sums of money. Now he has his vindication in the admission of unfair dismissal. He could have pursued reinstatement today. Last week he asked if the H.A. would undertake to provide one more nurse on each night shift (the salaries for which could have been paid for several years from the monies already spent by the H.A. in defending these proceedings). The H.A. declined to give that undertaking. In those circumstances Mr Pink has, on reflection, decided that though he would have been prepared to put behind him the unfairness of the H.A. '5 dismissal of him, he is unable to bring himself to return to work for a H.A. who, after all that has occurred, persist in publicly maintaining that nurse staffing levels are adequate. In short he has lost all confidence in the Stockport H.A. He would not wish the Tribunal to reinstate him there.
This case has vindicated nurses who, after taking up internally failures to provide adequate patient care, raise such issues publicly. The evidence confirmed that the standard form H.A. contract of employment with Mr Pink incorporated the U.K. Central council of Nursing standards. These make clear that nurses (who have their own professional autonomy) in the last resort must each decide when the public interest requires that they speak out: it is a matter for them and they cannot be gagged by their employers. This case is a victory for nurses and for patient care. Again, on behalf of Mr Pink, I say it is regrettable that so much public money has been spent defending the indefensible." Return to TOP of page
by Graham Pink (written for Freedom to Care)
'Hypocrisy', according to Somerset Maughan, 'is the most difficult and nerve-racking vice that any men can pursue; it needs an unceasing vigilance and a rare detachment of spirit. it cannot, like adultery or gluttony, practised at spare moments; It is a whole time lob. 'Reading some of Stockport Health Authority's recent outpourings, they appear to have brought the art to a new zenith (although in view of the associated fraud and flight from justice, 'nadir' might be a better choice of word).
On June 14th the Authority decided to abandon its futile defence of my dismissal, and admitted it was unfair. In the words of my counsel, John Hendy QC, 'Criticism is something the Health Authority was not prepared to tolerate. So It sacked Mr Pink. Tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money has been spent in attempting to defend the indefensible.' My wish was to continue the tribunal, and I did all I could to see that this happened for the sake of openness, honesty and above all justice and truth. However the stratagem of withdrawal was a most cynical ploy, but one of many, to avoid the truth emerging and to protect management from further damaging revelations. Clearly the Authority was prepared to move heaven and earth to prevent the malpractice, deceit and gross unprofessional behaviour of managers from being further driven home and thus exposed to the attention and opprobrium they so rightly deserve.
One can take with a packet of salt the Press Release put out by the Authority. To continue the tribunal, it stated, 'would have cost us an extra £250,000 which could only have been diverted directly from money earmarked for care of patients.' Such cloying hypocrisy insults all decent, right-minded people, and in particular those patients, relatives and nursing staff concerned with my attempt to improve night nursing levels for Stepping Hill Hospital's geriatric patients. The fact that as much as half-a-million pounds of public money has already been misappropriated exposes the disgrace and obliquity of these managers far more eloquently than can any words of mine.
No hint of regret is to be found in the Authority's statement - not so much for the revengeful manner in which I have been treated for having the audacity to speak the truth, but for the patients and relatives who have suffered directly, and the people of Stockport whose health care funds have been so wantonly and selfishly squandered. Arrogance, infelicity and gracelessness leap out from every line. One looks in vain for a trace of humility, regret or apology. How very sad that not one manager or Authority member seems able to put up a hand and say: 'I'm sorry; we got it wrong.' Instead cynicism, bluster and evasion reign.
We read of 'Mr Pinks' florid allegations against the Authority and fellow members of staff...' Totally untrue. I have never uttered a word about my ex-colleagues other than to praise their magnificent and truly devoted work for the benighted and dying patients of Stepping Hill. Were I to fall sick, I would wish to be cared for by staff with similar skill and commitment. The Authority vice chair is quoted as saying: 'Mr Pink's campaign of denigration of his former colleagues...' What denigration? She goes on to state that Mr Pink's view of the staffing on the wards was 'his alone'. Another blatant falsehood. The Chairman and Chief Executive have joined in the slander. How can people in public life speak such manifest lies? What possible gain can there be for them, for the hospital or its staff to put out such glaring calumnies?Are such people fit to sit on a public body? Should we not question their judgement and their honesty? Am I just old fashioned in assuming that integrity, decency and veracity are the quintessence of public service?
Iin view of the hypocrisy and cynicism displayed by management throughout this case, Oscar Wilde's aphorism, 'A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing', seems particularly apt. Whilst many people the length and breadth of this country believe that Stockport's values must be questioned, I can certainly tell you the price of truth.
WHISTLEBLOWERS AND EXPERTS ON WHISTLEBLOWERS
By Graham Pink (written for Freedom to Care)
(December 1994)
In chapter 9 of his book, Whistleblowing: Subversion or Corporate Citizenship? (Chapman, 1994) Professor Gerald Vinten sets out to present 'an unprecedented employer's view' of 'whistleblowing' by discussing the events surrounding my suspension and sacking. As such, the chapter could he a useful contribution to the discussion on speaking the truth in the Health Service. How sad then that the result is not only unprecedented but unprincipled and misinformed. That the account is totally one-sided is to be expected and perhaps none the worse for that. That it is inaccurate, misleading and premised on deceit is, however, not acceptable and must cast serious doubt upon the author's judgment and honesty. For example, the writer (1) says I wished to give more 'concentrated patient care' - untrue; (2) quotes a letter from a ward sister (pp. 118-9) who never in the three years concerned worked as a night bedside nurse and had no experience of the incidents involved; (3) says (p.127) that when the Chief Executive visited the ward 'It had been a quiet night'. How could this he so at 9.15 p.m., only half an hour into the eleven-hour shift? In fact, so hectic were we when Mr. Milnes arrived that he was obliged to sit alone in the corridor for twenty minutes whilst we tried (but failed) to save a lady who had just collapsed. A second patient died soon after he left the ward. It was a particularly busy night.
The one thing that was paramount in all my writing regarding this case was accuracy. At all times I wrote only what was true and could be independently verified. Vinten's chapter 9 would have benefitted from similar criteria. That the author presents so many incorrect 'facts' calls into question the validity and reliability of what is written. He states that I trained as a nurse in the mid-fifties. Untrue. By then I had left nursing. Prior to working at Stepping Hill, states the chapter, 1 had not nursed acutely ill elderly patients. Untrue. 'After 30 years as a schoolteacher he returned to nursing' - untrue. The writer says that my actions were 'distressing to elderly people' but produces no evidence. Which elderly people, how many, how were they distressed, etc? Vague, unsubstantiated and quite meaningless throw-away comments like this add nothing to the author's case. The 'chairman spent four hours visiting the wards ... and discussed the subject of staffing levels with Pink.' Untrue. I was present (the professor was not) and I have a detailed, written record. 'Others did not share' my view of the situation. One more trite comment. How many 'others'? With what direct experience of the problem? Of the staff who worked alongside me at night (how many did the author interview alone?) 76% were very supportive and most thought more staff were needed. I can supply the names of the staff who gave me their backing. Can the professor name even one member of the permanent, night, geriatric staff involved?
Anyone who worked nightly in the geriatric area during the period concerned would find the writer's description fanciful and perverted. He states that 'if a ward becomes especially busy ... nurses are expected to telephone the night-nurse manager' who would take action to relieve the situation. This is complete myth. The manager could, according to the story, 'send a bank (relief) nurse.' However, bank nurses need to be engaged in advance, usually days in advance. There is no way that at 2.30 a.m. a bank nurse can be phoned at home and brought in. The average layman, unfamiliar with hospitals, might be excused for falling for such foolishness, but the author of what might be seen as an authoritative account really ought to be more careful with (and suspicious of) his sources.
So shot through is the chapter with error, distortion and plain untruth that one must question how Professor Vinten set about his research. I have identified 54 'errors' in the chapter. Of these, 30 are plain untruths. The rest are inventions, misrepresentations and half-truths which present a completely false and prejudicial picture.
On page 128, for example, is reproduced a part of a letter from 'Forty-two ward staff who were 'moved to write to the media...' Of these 42 people, 37 (thirty seven) were NOT our night staff, had no experience of the described events nor had EVER worked alongside me at night. Of our 26 regular, night staff FIVE ONLY had put their signatures to the letter in 'The Guardian'. The professor might like to explain why 81%, though approached, declined to do so! The chapter has all the hallmarks of having been written either directly by Stockport management or from material supplied by it.
Either way, it is disturbing that the author should have been so readily duped. The very least one might expect an academic In his position to do is ascertain the truth. By falling to check his facts, to seek evidence or to question the motives of management the author destroys the whole credibility of the chapter. There are one or two sensible points but these are submerged by his huge disregard for truth and honesty. It must be a cause of profound concern that a learned man in the professor's position can put his name to such a parody of reality. He has done a grave disservice to the superb nurses with whom it was my privilege to work, to his own probity, to patients past and future but most of all to the cause of truth itself. Return to TOP of page