From a psychological point of view it is predictable that people do not wish to incriminate themselves in advance of any legal proceedings. Reflective logs can be misused, like safety investigation interviews. The predictable response would be to write little (for ALL of us).
-
-
-
I do understand that. But most of us don't have a professional & contractual duty of candour, or work for an employer who has a statutory duty of candour. This case is just bringing to a head a situation that has been brewing for decades. Let's hope it leads to a proper solution.
-
Not by law, but ethically, morally? I used to be a heavy goods driver. Very hazardous job. I would not report myself by going over speed limit. I think we might have to accept now that reflective logs will be weakened now as a learning tool, whatever we’d like. Just human nature.
-
Maybe so. But it will only illuminate the deception which has underpinned the NHS's response to virtually all complaints for as long as I've been a part. Patients have had enough. Sympathy is unlikely to be plentiful among those who know the reality. Human nature cuts both ways.
-
But what are the influences on that? Adversarial legal system? Retributive justice without restorative justice? Fear? All in a context of a messy, under-resourced and badly designed system set against societal expectations and demands.
-
You're absolutely right. It's a mess. But it's been a mess for a long time. This case doesn't change a thing, it just shows how desperate families are finding they have no choice but to seek justice through courts, when the NHS and the so-called duty of candour fails them.
-
Two important lenses on this. a) How we would like the world to be. b) How the world is (predictable patterns). When we try to achieve a) we seem to fail to account for b). We use regulation and law without applying psychology, HF/E, sociology, ethnography, systems thinking...
-
I wouldn't disagree with that in respect of formal changes that are attempted. I think families do account for b) - and that includes the impotence of the regulators - when deciding to go the legal route. It's never a first choice. Whole thing needs a radical rethink.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
That is a great point well made John. A threat to continue.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
If clinicians want immunity for medical errors or special treatment, then total candour and independent handling of medical records is a non-negotiable first step for me. Start with that, otherwise no discussion. The court cases will continue for as long as the lies do, imho.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
What wouldnt I give just to have one of them tell the truth! Often wondered, in a quiet moment, do none of them ever pause, for just a second, and consider exactly what it is they are doing, and what happens if they get caught?
-
I actually think I may have caught mine 'in the act' of the cover up. Ordinarily, I think it's so common for some it becomes bau. Doesn't bother them. But on that day, in that moment, I think at least 1 had chance to consider. After a change of underwear, based upon his reaction!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This is the same man who gave assurances to whistleblowers last year that their issues would be taken up and then left them to be taken down by the establishment of which he is a key part.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.