Whistleblowing remains an important mechanism in healthcare, but it is deeply problematic for whistleblowers themselves (many of whom feel they have no other option but to take this route) for organisations, and for the NHS generally. During our many years of experience in reviews and investigations, Niche has found that cases of whistleblowing can almost always be attributed to a failure of governance. However, there are:

1. Whistleblowing Exists Where
Governance Fails
Whistleblowing remains an important mechanism in healthcare, but it is deeply problematic for
whistleblowers themselves (many of whom feel they have no other option but to take this route)
for organisations, and for the NHS generally. During our many years of experience in reviews
and investigations, Niche has found that cases of whistleblowing can almost always be
attributed to a failure of governance. However, there are:
● Many ways to support raising concerns without whistleblowing being the
eventuality
● Better ways to deal with whistleblowing when and if it happens.
The Context Of NHS Culture
Whilst there has been a demonstrable increase in verbal and procedural commitments to
openness since Robert Francis completed his Freedom to Speak Up Review in 2015, there
remains a significant lack of genuine progress towards developing a culture of “radical honesty.”
By this we mean a culture where concerns can be raised with candour, within a just culture, and
acted upon in a shared spirit of continuous quality improvement.

2. Whistleblowing In The Media
Instead, the cases of whistleblowing which make it into the media often describe just the
opposite. Many are whistleblowers who report being marginalised and have suffered a
detriment, but one side of the story often remains unheard. Individuals within organisations can
also suffer detriment, those accused, those working within the services and those handling the
cases.
This is in addition to reputational damage for whole services, organisations and the act of
‘speaking up’ itself; this is all indicative of the (currently) very flawed and fragile system of
raising concerns. The non-whistleblowers voice is rarely heard, in what is often presented in the
media as heroic Davids battling fierce Goliaths. Protected disclosure, public interest, fears of
legal action and the fear of adverse press all prevent a fully rounded and unbiased view from
emerging, which helps the NHS learn.
The challenges that organisations face in addressing cases of whistleblowing (often continuing
over several years) rarely surface, which can result in a very myopic view of the process being
upheld within the public conscience. Fear surrounding whistleblowing as well as a failure to
learn prevents the NHS from developing ‘secure’ handling surrounding ‘speaking up’ and this is
a real threat to patient safety.
How Raising Concerns Escalates Into Whistleblowing Crisis For
An Organisation
Whistleblowing is usually a direct representation of governance which has failed. It is not usually
the first resort option available to staff (and should not be employed as such) - it is the last and
usually happens when all other avenues of redress have failed. A unifying characteristic of most
cases is that they were managed poorly and without sufficient independence from the outset;
this is ‘insecure handling’. When insecure handling progresses; this can create compound
damage and all parties can suffer detriment.
Indications that an organisation is not handling concerns securely can be seen when senior
leaders:
● Assume that early concerns (usually raised some time before the episode of
whistleblowing) will somehow ‘work themselves out’…
● Assign concerns simply to ‘team dysfunction’ and ‘conflicting personalities’ (this
can quickly become allegations of racism, sexism and favouritism)…
● Spend too much time trying to assess the motives of the individual raising
concerns: ‘What do they want?’ or, ‘They are raising concerns in retaliation?” This
can cause the topic ‘bleed’ to become less about the concerns that were raised
and more about the tribunal, the Inquest, the money or the person
● Try to ‘keep the issues localised’ and not let them spill up to the Board or outside
of the organisation, too, for example, the CQC
● Allow rumours to start by failing to apply confidentiality, partisan behaviours can
start to develop where people ‘take sides’ despite having little or no knowledge of
the actual evidence (some of which cannot always be reported)

3. ● Fail to act decisively, to ensure the issues are properly investigated and that the
evidence is identified and utilised properly, without bias
● Allocating too much time to ‘managing the message’ and ‘closing the issue
down’, can often contribute directly to the issue becoming louder and more
volatile.
Often, we see lawyers becoming involved from both parties as relationships deteriorate and
legal arguments about the process quickly supersede the original concern. All of these
‘insecure’ approaches can lead to an unrecoverable loss of trust between the individual raising
concerns and the organisation. This loss of faith can be pervasive, extending to all aspects of
subsequent case handling; resolution becomes unobtainable. There must be thousands of NHS
hours spent dealing with issues surrounding whistleblowing which could be much better utilised
on making the improvements required.
Handling Concerns In Ways Which Support The Safe Surfacing
Of The Facts
‘Secure’ handling would see a reversal of the above key points. Prompt and early intervention;
concerns which are taken seriously; impartial involvement from the start (not from a lawyer);
confidential handling of information throughout; early and sincere feedback to the person raising
concerns; the correct remedy proposed and implemented; and demonstrable improvements to
patient safety. Secure handling requires solid protocols which cover all eventualities around how
concerns are raised; via the line-manager, via hotline, in-person or anonymously (the latter
seems to create a particular and unhelpful type of focus).
We rarely hear about ‘speaking up’ cases which have been handled in a ‘secure’ way - because
they often don’t result in whistleblowing. The ability of individuals to raise concerns about their
services and organisations requires a mature culture which has a focus on radical honesty. A
culture of radical honesty requires civility, responsiveness, and an absolute and unequivocal
commitment to patient safety from all parties.
Learning And Preventing
To draw helpful learning from cases of whistleblowing organisational leaders must:
● See each case of whistleblowing as an audit of the effectiveness of governance -
Every single case of Whistleblowing should attract a corresponding audit of all of the
steps and avenues which should have provided a better and more productive outcome
for both the whistleblower and the organisation. Establish the earliest point that the
member of staff (or team) could have been listened to, and what actions should have
been taken to address the concerns properly at an earlier stage.
● Ensure secure processes for case-handling

4. Avoid conflicts and a lack of impartial handling. If people raising concerns feel that
leaders of an investigation “have an agenda” this will damage the process, especially as
some people will have minimal trust from the start. Organisations struggle with the dual
role of arbitrator and defender of organisational interests, and this is where an
independent view is essential; lawyers are rarely helpful in this regard. Make sure that
information is treated with respect, and that evidence required is gathered thoroughly, as
omissions (actual or perceived) can be very damaging at later stages when relationships
are under stress. Opportunities for gossip must be minimised.
● Work towards a culture of radical honesty
Developing a culture of radical honesty between individuals, teams, services, and
organisations is key to the positive handling of concerns at an early stage. The NHS
must be able to safely surface the truth if service quality and just culture are to be
maintained and improved. Developing such a culture requires strong leadership at all
levels and those individuals must exhibit role-model behaviours. People must see
concerns being handled concerning have faith that they will be heard if they are
compelled to speak up.
More open learning like this will help to ensure that concerns are addressed at a much earlier
stage within a culture of radical honesty. Staff will feel much safer in raising concerns, the public
will have more confidence, and there will be a virtuous cycle of improvement surrounding patient
safety and healthcare governance.
Written by Niche Health and Social Care Consulting