CQC chair must consider her position
The decision by Care Quality Commission chair Jo Williams to ask Andrew Lansley to remove non-executive director and “whistleblower” Kay Sheldon from the CQC board raised eyebrows in Whitehall and Westminster.
Such a move is only wise if you have exhausted all internal avenues and are very confident that your view will be accepted. For obvious reasons, working alongside someone whose sacking you have requested would be highly difficult - especially at the top of an organisation such as the CQC, which is trying hard to improve its reputation and performance.
It was not the CQC’s intention to make the letter’s existence public, but it will have been aware of the possibility and how that would raise the stakes even higher.
Now, after careful consideration and legal consultation, Mr Lansley has decided that Ms Sheldon should stay on the board. The decision cannot help but give weight to Ms Sheldon’s sharp criticisms of the CQC expressed in herevidence to the Mid Staffordshire Foundation Trust inquiry, an appearance which inquiry chair Robert Francis QC praised for its “great courage”.
HSJ has no intention of joining the blanket criticism of the CQC - the regulator has succeeded in its fearsomely difficult task as much as it has failed.
The arrival of new chief executive David Behan gives it a great opportunity to take a decisive step forward. However, Dame Jo must now consider whether her continued presence as CQC chair will help or hinder that process of renewal.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment.
Share
Readers' comments (15)
Patrick Newman | 2-Aug-2012 3:52 pm
As Lansley has intervened perhaps Dame Jo should discuss with him or his minion how she can operate with authority in the future before deciding if her position has been made impossible.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 2-Aug-2012 3:54 pm
With regret, I have to agree wholeheartedly. Indeed, having had her request rejected, Jo Williams should surely have resigned very quickly after Andrew Lansley's decision was made known to her as a matter of self respect.
Equally, however,one has to wonder why the Secretary of State allowed this position to arise. Having sided with Ms Sheldon he was bound to be seen as implicitly endorsing her views of the CQC Chair and CEO. This makes the chair's position untenable and, as such, surely he should have simultaneously asked the chair to resign.
One can only hope she is not being retained now to permit her ritualised sacking once Francis appears. Without that option, it leaves messrs Nicholson and Flory dangerously exposed. It is in the public's interest that she should go now with quiet dignity so that the responsibility of NHS management for Stafford and the rest of the iceberg is not clouded by the essentially secondary contribution of regulatory failure compared with the primary failure of management.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 2-Aug-2012 3:57 pm
My expression of agreement at 3.54 was intended to be with Alistair Mclellan and not with Patrick as I had not seen the latter's post when I composed and submitted mine.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 2-Aug-2012 9:30 pm
My expression of agreement at 3.54 was intended to be with Alistair Mclellan and not with Patrick as I had not seen the latter's post when I composed and submitted mine.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 3-Aug-2012 0:45 am
I don't know the lady but Kay Sheldon has risked all to do the job she was appointed to do - to represent the public interest. If every NHS board had someone like her on it, the NHS would be in a much better place than it is today. Perhaps she should now be given the role of CQC chair?
Unsuitable or offensive?
Ron Rushbrook | 3-Aug-2012 9:20 am
I see no reason why the Chair should be expected to resign. If CQC is to be managed by professionals, both parties should find a way to be able to put the past behind them and work together for the benefit of patients, providers and their own staff.
Such conflict is common in any workforce (albeit not usually at such high level) and it is very Victorian to think the only way to resolve it is to dismiss one or both parties.
The SoS is right not to intervene this is something that needs sorting out at local level
If the two cannot sort out their differences how either of them comfortably say, they can oversee the management of such a complex organisation as CQC. Dame Jo needs to take on board Kay’s concerns criticisms& Kay needs the determination to stay the course and seek the changes she believes necessary for improved performance across CQC
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 3-Aug-2012 10:27 am
The problem for Jo Williams, however, is that the Secretary of State has intervened in refusing her request for a Board member to be removed. That undercuts her ability to achieve a local resolution since she now has at least one hand tied behind her back. And at this critical time, what does it do to her authority within the board and with partners?
Unsuitable or offensive?
Ginette CAMPS-WALSH | 3-Aug-2012 11:32 am
The treatment of whistleblowers in the NHS is very concerning. This case, the recent court ruling over an acute trust's action towards a whistleblowing clinician, Bristol and Oxford paediatric cardiac surgey etc and others who are trying to improve standards would lead one to question whether patient safety and outcomes are less important than covering up for colleagues. It also shows that the mechanisms for rasining concerns internally is totally inadequate as people who make the decision to become whistleblowers suffer considerably. I am very pleased Andrew Lansley did not support the CQC Chairman's request. The message it would have sent is that it is acceptable to act against whistleblowers who are trying to act for the public good and to raise clinical standards.
Patient safety and outcomes must be regarded as the most important criteria in the NHS. Anything or anyone who compromises clinical standards needs remedial action not cover up.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 3-Aug-2012 12:39 pm
Another CQC blunder from one of its top people. Why not just get rid of Jo and make Kay Chair? That'd make sure Behan et al don't drop the ball again.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Blair Mcpherson | 3-Aug-2012 3:52 pm
How can a chair have confidence in a board member who makes their critisms so public and so personal?
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 3-Aug-2012 4:12 pm
But what about the public's trust in the chair...?
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 3-Aug-2012 10:35 pm
And what should a chair do when her 'boss' does not support that lack of confidence in the Board member in question............?
Unsuitable or offensive?
Kenneth Lownds | 5-Aug-2012 12:27 pm
Evidence given to the Mid Staffs Public Inquiry demonstrates that a great deal of so-called 'regulation' under Labour was a sham and a charade. 'Zero star day' in 2004 was end to any semblance of proper inspection and holding to account. Start your reading with Ian Kennedy and Dr Heather Wood. Of course Jo Williams should go. Kay Sheldon is one of the very few who come out of the Mid Staffs disaster with any credit at all. The NHS is in an utter mess and won't change until Nicholson and his cohorts are cleared out totally. Look at the Raj Mattu story back in the news, doesn't it illustrate the depth of the problem?
Unsuitable or offensive?
Daphne Havercroft | 5-Aug-2012 12:52 pm
Jo Williams chairs an organisation that failed to respond to whistleblowers' concerns raised publicly in 2009 about histopathology misdiagnosis in Bristol. CQC failed to carry out its own investigation into the problems and seems to have gone out of its way to avoid speaking to the doctor whistleblowers who still feel that their concerns have not been taken seriously.
Kay Sheldon has stood up for whistleblowers. Jo Williams has not. Therefore Jo Williams' position as CQC chair appears untenable.
http://swwhag.wordpress.com/
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 20-Aug-2012 12:24 pm
What I have found most unacceptable is how Kay Sheldon's mental health has been used by Ms Williams as a weapon to hurt her with. This is an absolute disgrace, - an action for which the Chair has to take responsibility and the consequences. She should be removed from office. It raises the issue of how whistleblowers are treated in CQC for bringing things to light, and would certainly deter more junior staff now that they can see how Kay has been treated.
Unsuitable or offensive?