MIP Knowledge Exchange
Use the Knowledge Exchange website to network with 6848 NHS & social care managers. Access is free to both MiP and non-MiP members.
- Ive just finished working with NHS North West on developing a set of strategic scenarios painting 4...
- Job match for learning and devlopment manager / training manager?...
- Is clinical governance transactional or transformational and how has the conceptual framework devel...
Specialists are moving into community based care as a result of Government-led reforms. Professor Martin Roland from the National Primary Care Research and Development Centre at the University of Manchester, addresses the issues in the latest Viewpoint.
Case Studies
Case Study One
William has been chief executive of his hospital trust for three years. From before his appointment the trust has had financial problems - although these are now improving. William recently investigated the performance of his finance director who resigned. The trust’s chairman is happy with William’s performance and the board supports his handling of the financial problems.
However, the strategic health authority (SHA) called William in, said it has lost confidence in him and demanded he resign. It told him bluntly that if he did not go by the end of the month, the SHA would audit the trust’s waiting lists. The SHA stated the audit would find something wrong and William would be sacked without notice.
William does not believe there are any irregularities in the trust’s waiting list reports. The root of the problem is that he recently clashed with the SHA when he correctly reported a shortfall in the politically-sensitive A and E target in the previous month.
With the advice and support of the union, William refused to resign. The SHA demanded that the trust’s chairman suspend him pending an investigation. The investigation dragged on for six months only to find no evidence of waiting list ‘fiddling’ by the chief executive or anyone else at the trust.
William’s suspension was widely reported in the local press. Despite the lack of any evidence of wrongdoing, it was decided that there was now no trust and confidence between the chief executive and the trust. The union agreed compensation for William for the loss of his job.
In summary, this trust was without day-to-day leadership for six months. An able chief executive became ill as a result of his treatment. A large but undisclosed sum of public money was wasted on a pointless investigation.