Independent National Whistleblowing Officer for NHS Scotland engagement event: outcomes

5 Framework for a Whistleblowing Process

Timescales and standards

5.1 Following on from the earlier discussions this part of the workshop focussed specifically on the framework and process for raising concerns that the INWO should operate under. Having had the opportunity for some consideration of this earlier in the day, the majority of delegates welcomed the two stage process of 5 and 20 days with cases being assessed against clear standards. However, it was critical to ensure that these were the starting points and to be worked towards wherever possible. Where a case was complex or other factors could be demonstrated that showed this was not achievable, the set of circumstances relating to that case that NHS organisations were not then penalised as a result. SPSO staff advised that with complaints in those circumstances as long as individuals had been communicated with appropriately there were no criticism of organisations. This meant that a general consensus was achieved by all delegates that this should be an aim in order to stop concerns slipping into a protracted process.

Recording and reporting of all concerns raised

5.2 Delegates felt data and intelligence could play an important role in shaping, influencing and changing poor practice therefore the INWO should have systems in place for doing so. In addition, most of this intelligence would be gathered from NHS organisations.

5.3 Delegates shared the many different methods currently available within Health Boards for the raising and recording of concerns. The most common method used appeared to be by the completion of a Datix. However, this often took 30 minutes to complete and the form was too complex. Also, Datix is not universally used across Scotland and even where it is used it is not always set up and configured in the same way within each Health Board, meaning different permissions and escalation processes were in place. Furthermore, not all staff had access to the Datix system and completing these forms in confidence. Where staff did have access, confidence was not possible as often this had to be done on a computer at a busy ward station where other staff could see what you were doing.

5.4 In addition, if the two-stage process of 5 and 20 days was adopted then the recording of concerns, the investigation and responses also needed recording against these timelines along with reasons for any potential slippage and eventual timescales met. It was felt by some delegates therefore that a further piece of work was required for this with a view to agreeing a 'Once for Scotland system across Scotland that could be adopted by all NHS organisations.

Confidentiality and anonymity

5.5 Confidentiality and anonymity was one area that resulted in a lot of discussion. A number of delegates felt that currently there is a long way to go before staff felt able to raise concerns openly and therefore the options to do so anonymously and confidentially needed to remain but this was also currently limited. These delegates therefore felt that other options for raising concerns confidentially should be considered and cited examples such as apps and alert lines for doing so. In addition to raising concerns in this way with their Health Boards, they also felt the option to use these options with the INWO should be available. They accepted the restrictions as previously mentioned around investigation, but it still allowed them to flag up matters and as long as they were investigated as far as possible, this would be viewed as acceptable because of the restrictions.

5.6 Questions were asked if ex-employees could raise concerns with the INWO as they might feel it is safer to do so after they had left the employment. Some delegates agreed in principle this should be an option, but a time limit should be factored in. There was mixed responses from delegates about what the time limit should be which ranged from 3 months to 12 months.