Policy wonkery turns up in the most unexpected places. Today’s release of a report into the failings of care at Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust has flushed out another example. With the BBC reporting that hospital patients were left "sobbing and humiliated" by uncaring staff, poor care caused unimaginable distress and suffering, and patients had been "dying needlessly" one wonders, and then some, what on earth the nurses were up to.
Nurses can witter on about their status as professionals. Some may not be quite there yet, constitutionally unsuited to that standard of individual responsibility and leadership.
All registered nurses are regulated by the Nursing and Midwifery Council. The first line about the NMC on their home page - the very first line – is ‘The Nursing & Midwifery Council exists to safeguard the health and wellbeing of the public.’ Unfortunately, they can only do this in retrospect, once wellbeing has been compromised. An individual's professionalism should avert disaster in the first instance but when nursing professionalism is flexibly applied and stands back in response to a corporate trump card, the NMC can only start 'safeguarding' after events result in a complaint.
What are the NMC saying about Mid-Staffs? As it transpires, something weirdly passionless, so measured it sounds as if it is uttered with a figurative ‘what’s all the fuss?’ tone of voice, by a policy wonk. Where’s the acknowledgement of their role in protecting the public in their web comment on the Mid Staffs enquiry (24/02/10)?
Commenting on the NMC’s position, Professor Dickon Weir-Hughes, NMC Chief Executive and Registrar said:
“We had already opened a case file in relation to the events at Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust before publication of the independent inquiry’s report. The report is important evidence which will help us to determine what appropriate further regulatory action is required”.
They've 'opened a case file'.
Undoubtedly true, but not a powerful demonstration of what the public might consider 'protecting the public' looks like. There’s no galvanised statement (if you detect an ex-nurse’s exasperation with the NMC you’re right to) Here's my version of the kind of thing I would have liked to have seen.
‘We’re getting to the bottom of this. We are already conducting a rigorous investigation into several registered nurses. (By the way, are any of them executive level nurses?.... just asking.....) but it will not be a witch hunt. Our misconduct enquiries are open to the public, albeit in small numbers. The NMC processes are fair and transparent. Individuals will, of course, be entitled to representation and will be able to put their version of events. However, depending on the findings it is possible that some nurses may, ultimately, be removed form the register - 'struck off' in lay parlance.
The public should be reassured that the NMC does not shy away from taking such action if it is appropriate. The actions or inactions of individual registered nurses that may have contributed to or prolonged this disaster will be measured against the standards of professional conduct and behaviour that we are here to uphold. Whilst it is important not to prejudge or prejudice the outcomes of any NMC enquiries the NMC unequivocally recognises that no patient should have experienced what these people went through.’
Another thought. Whilst keen to take a robust stand against any culpable nurses there may be grey areas for 'blame'. What if it was a bullying workplace? Bullying affects thinking, self worth and one's perception of one’s ability to influence events. Working practices that promote a situation so bad and so inhumane will be workplace bullying. It's alleged Number Ten is a bullying workplace. In Mid-Staffs we could be looking at the extreme end of true workplace bullying. People died in Staffordshire. Real people.
