UHMBT DOCUMENTS SENT TO GOVERNORS

In the interests of accuracy...

Having taken some time to examine the documents published online and sent to UHMBT governors there are a few points that both I and Peter feel need to be clarified.

The documents are available here: UHMBT documents sent to governors

David Walker's quality committee report January 2019

1. DW: There was a discussion between the clinicians who disagreed that this (the death of Peter Read in 2015) was appropriate for discussion in Morbidity & Mortality (M&M). The trust discussed this with the coroner and the coroner requested that as it was not being discussed at audit meeting, that he would like a Root Cause Analysis undertaking and sharing with him. This was agreed in writing between the coroner and the trust legal department.  

Peter Duffy response: Firstly there was no discussion about appropriateness.  There was simply a blank refusal to discuss the case by Muhammad Naseem and Ashutosh Jain when I attempted to discuss the case at the M&M meeting, even when I repeatedly pointed out the non-negotiable nature of the coroner's orders. All deaths should be discussed at M&M meetings by their very nature.

There was never any correspondence disclosed at my employment tribunal between the coroner and the trust, simply an exchange between the legal office and the coroner’s office implying that I was supporting an RCA as an alternative, AFTER the act of disobedience took place. It was the trust that suggested an RCA, NOT the coroner.  Oh, and the coroner at the time was a "she".

2. DW: Clinical incident reporting in the urology department in the period following his (Kavinder Madhra's) return was unremarkable and comparable to other departments in the trust.

PD response: This was because we'd been told, by George Nasmyth, not to formally report incidents about Kavinder Madhra in writing and to discuss them informally.  

3. DW: The consultant (Peter Duffy) claims we misled the coroner. We have provided the consultant with documentary proof that this is not correct and shared our evidence with the coroner but the consultant continues to make this claim.  

PD response: Where is this proof?  I've never seen it. 

I have been careful with my claims about this and continue to claim that trust employees disobeyed the coroner as above.  This is slightly different from misleading the coroner, although I would certainly say that the email from the trust’s legal department, implying that I was in favour of an RCA, was misleading.  

There is no documentary proof whatsoever that the coroner’s order to discuss the case in the M&M meeting was ever carried out. 

4. DW: The trust has investigated these claims and has identified most, but not all of the cases, despite contacting the consultant for further information to help identify them.

PD response: In December 2017 I shared with DW a lengthy document to assist with the identification of the patients. 

5. DW: He (Peter Duffy) also initially claimed that he had suffered detriment because he has made protected disclosures about patient safety, though this claim was withdrawn before the tribunal and not tested in court. Most of the claims reported refer to the cases of the consultant referred to above which were managed appropriately at the time by the Trust. 

PD response: This claim was not withdrawn. I lost on that point (mainly because of the dropping out of all my witnesses) but it was never withdrawn and it most certainly WAS tested under hostile cross examination.  Most of the claims were NOT to do with Kavinder Madhra and a good number related to Mr Jain and Mr Naseem.