Francis NHS whistleblower report: a new beginning?

The following is an abstract from The Guardian.

“Last June, six senior NHS professionals, including myself, met Jeremy Hunt to relate our personal histories and petition him for a public inquiry into whistleblower victimisation. We had all suffered extreme retaliation after raising serious concerns about patient care. Five of us had been dismissed. A week later Jeremy Hunt, health secretary, commissioned Sir Robert Francis to conduct a review into creating an open and honest reporting culture in the NHS. For Francis this is unfinished business from his earlier inquiries at Mid Staffordshire Foundation Trust , as he told us with some passion at our first meeting. At Mid Staffs he found it necessary to have clandestine meetings with staff after guaranteeing their anonymity. “People were just scared,” he told us.

The scope of the review was unsatisfactory. Historic cases would not be reopened or adjudicated. The review team was small and the timescale too short, we thought, to cope with the submissions we anticipated. We may have been naïve but decided to trust Francis that this could at least be a step to a full public inquiry. He reassured us that this had definitely not been ruled out.

This new review is a frank admission once again that all is not well in the NHS. Variable, substandard and sometimes abysmal care is still all too common. In hospitals where frontline staff attempt to address this they are often met with a wall of silence and hostility by management. This was our own experience. In a recent major speech, Hunt, with alarming recognition, wished out loud that some NHS chief executives would behave a little less like Stalin and model themselves more on Ghandi, the great soul of tolerance and compassion.


We have come a long way since Sir David Nicholson told the Mid Staffs public inquiry that whistleblowing (and bullying) was not a significant problem in the NHS. That is the attitude of denial that has allowed this culture to fester and hold back staff engagement in safer patient care.

The Freedom to speak up review has two main parts. The qualitative review has received about 600 submissions mostly from individuals. Many of these tell stories of highly competent professionals who, putting patient interests beyond their own, have felt the full force of managerial blame come down on them. The quantitative review involving a volunteered phone survey of the experiences, good or bad, of staff raising concerns has attracted 17,500 submissions. At a recent seminar we were told these recorded largely negative experiences and that managers rather than colleagues were the main source of victimisation.

After two postponements Francis is about to send his report to Hunt. We look forward to reading its recommendations within days of this. If, by any chance, these attempts to fix the future do not fully address the past, they will, in my opinion, fail.

Without a judicial examination of historic cases including the failure of the Department of Health, trust boards, unions, regulators, Royal Colleges, and others to support whistleblowers the truth will never be known. The whistleblowers have lost their careers. Their families have been damaged, in some cases beyond repair. Their health has suffered and personal finances often lie in tatters. The perpetrators will never be held accountable for their behaviour. Worst of all patient harm will go unaddressed and the vital lessons of this tragic history will go unlearned. Hunt and Francis understand this better than most. The report and the way it is implemented will tell us if they have found the political will to translate their understanding into decisive action, or if life under Stalin is to continue as normal.

Scroll to Top