Independent National Whistleblowing Officer for NHS Scotland engagement event: outcomes

2 Hosting and Scope of the Independent National Whistleblowing Officer Role

2.1 The decision to host the INWO role under the jurisdiction of the SPSO was generally welcomed by most delegates in the workshops as the right outcome. Discussions covered the views that they felt the independence of the INWO was seen as critical. The fact that this would sit outside the governance of NHSScotland most delegates felt was a key factor in ensuring that independence and enabling trust to be built with the INWO. Delegates stated they would have confidence once the role was established if they could see the process was transparent, timely and trusted.

2.2 To enable those views some delegates felt it was critical to ensure that it was totally independent of all other parts of the healthcare system in reviewing and making its findings and that by sitting within the SPSO ensured that. In particular that it was entirely separate from any operational, regulatory, financial, commissioning and procurement functions but established on a similar permanent institutional footing with powers being equal to other regulators with some delegates feeling that those powers should be more than what has been set out and identified in the consultation. Other delegates had the view that these additional powers were not required as existing mechanisms in place such as the PIN policy and existing legislation should suffice.

2.3 There was general consensus that although it should be independent of all other parts of the healthcare system that it must not duplicate the role of any existing body. However, it was felt that greater consideration and clarity was required in relation to Healthcare Professionals' professional duty to report concerns, which needs to be taken into account and reflected by the INWO when receiving concerns from whistleblowers.

2.4 In principle there was general agreement from delegates that the internal process should be exhausted first before a complaint could be escalated to the INWO. However, some delegates felt that if the process was becoming unnecessary protracted then there should be the option of raising this with the INWO at an earlier stage and flexibility was required of the INWO for this. The views from delegates around this tended to be in line with a number of the responses from the consultation.

2.5 Delegates questioned how this role and its process would apply to primary care. There was consensus that it should do but it was recognised that there were no delegates present from primary care. It was agreed that liaising with stakeholders from primary care to enable further work in this area was required and this would be taken forward by SG and SPSO.

2.6 Including the title 'whistleblowing' was discussed and there were mixed views from delegates on this. Although many agreed it could have some negative connotations they felt it was understood and set out clearly what the purpose of the role was. In changing culture they also felt that if success was achieved it could start to change those negative connotations.

2.7 Delegates were asked to consider the scope of the role in investigating concerns and SPSO colleagues shared that it was proposed that it followed a similar pattern to the current complaints process. This in essence meant that the role would investigate if NHS organisations had fairly applied the local whistleblowing policy, including examination on the decision making and outcomes of the concern(s) raised, and, if in raising the concern, the individual had suffered any detriment or unfair treatment. In general most delegates agreed with this, with just a small number feeling that the impact on their employment and concerns being turned into employment matters needed to also be considered. Other delegates felt that by reviewing detriment and unfair treatment that may have been suffered would in effect highlight any such issues.