Response to NHS HEE’s Statement - Dr Chris Day

Following HEE’s defeat in the ET to me on the 14 May 2018 they have chosen to prejudice my future proceedings by commenting about my individual case on social medial and on their website. I note they end their public statement with;

“The hearing is this autumn and we will be refuting Dr Day’s claims and welcome the opportunity for HEE staff to have their say."

HEE has spent 3 years and over £100k trying to prevent any of the facts of this situation coming out in the open and being heard in court. In contrast I have spent even more money fighting HEE and responding to attempts to undermine me from the BMA and GMC to ensure the facts of this case are heard properly in court and my colleagues are properly protected by statutory whistleblowing law.

HEE have been exposed misrepresenting Parliament's intention for whistleblowing law and not disclosing a contract they had with the NHS Trust in my case that plainly demonstrated its substantial influence over junior doctors' engagement. This would have made it impossible to strike this case out in 2015, as HEE relied on it being fanciful to suggest they had such an influence, as the 2015 ET judgment confirms. Their conduct was so poor that they were forced to pay £55k of my legal costs which is rare in the employment tribunal. They conceded once we had exchanged witness statements that exposed serious allegations. The HEE claim that they did not contest this tribunal is laughable. HEE have spent over 3 years and well over £100k denying that they are an employer of doctors and then decided to concede that they were at the last minute after wasting more taxpayer money and tribunal time on their hopeless position.

On a day that HEE should have been embarrassed and ashamed of itself it released false statements about my case ironically with the word truth in one sentence.

The HEE claim that I resigned several times is false. I completed my fixed term contract at the Trust and made it clear on multiple occasions that I would not be continuing to another Trust until false statements included on my ARCP record, contradicted by all my supervisor reports and multisource feedback were either removed or explained. The truth is HEE ignored several polite letters over a 6 week period before me expressing the position that I would not continue to the next Trust without a formal investigation or the removal of the allegations. I subsequently repeated the position when the HEE actions became more obstructive to the extent that they attracted criticism and a legal threat from the BMA in August 2014 after a positive merits assessment of whistleblowing claims against the Trust and HEE.

The BMA sent an email to HEE dated 8 October 2014 where it describes the circumstances at which my training number was deleted. It refers to ONLY 1 resignation.

“Even at the meeting 2 September the Dean in offering Dr Day a return to training scheme attached conditions to that return, to accept such conditions would have meant that Dr Day tacitly accepted that he was in some way at fault. The outcome has thus been that Dr Day felt obliged to confirm his resignation from the scheme and has therefore no NTN. This is a significant detriment.

All this could have been resolved had Dr Lacy agreed to amend the form at the initial post ARCP meeting or even if Dr Day’s subsequent letters had been fully addressed.”

HEE also dismissed serious safety issues that have now been verified by a February 2017 NHS Peer Review. HEE’s public claim that their staff supported me is at odds with the fact that they failed to act on serious safety issues. They also failed to investigate false allegations that in the end they were forced to remove, but only after severe damage to my career. HEE staff also have serious allegations to defend about editing documents including an email from the BMA, withholding key evidence from investigations and producing misleading records of meetings and falsely claiming my agreement to them.

It is shameful that HEE has sought to engage with me publicly on the disputed facts of my case on a day it finally accepted that I was right about whistleblowing law actually covering it as an employer.

I close with my most recent clinical supervisor report from my last supervisor before my NTN was deleted. HEE witheld this from their investigations and the BMA from their merits assessments.

"Dr Chris Day was employed at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woolwich as a CT2 ACCS (EM) in Anaesthesia from February 2014 for six months.

He had no previous anaesthetic experience but rapidly became a very competent anaesthetist at CT level. When he took his place on the on call rota he was able to work without direct supervision where appropriate but was aware of his own limitations and knew when to summon help or advice.

He thought clearly and logically and could prioritise according to clinical need. He functioned well as part of a team communicating effectively with the full range of healthcare professionals as well as patients and their families. He coped well with responsibility and stressful situations.

He participated actively in the audit and teaching

He was very conscientious, absolutely reliable and always attended punctually. He took very little sick leave and was always willing to work flexibly to enable the department to cope with the clinical workload and was unfailingly cheerful and as a consequence a popular colleague."

NHS England Peer Review

http://54000doctors.org/blogs/complete-lack-of-medical-leadership-at-intensive-care-unit.html

Updates on the Day Case

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/we-won-whistleblowing-protecti/