Report comment

Posted on page with full report but perhaps more relevant here

Wow. Astonishing reading for many reasons, including the GMC case handler's apparent ability to consider some written evidence (a formal letter from the Trust Chair) as 'hearsay', while also considering conjecture from another CEO as strong enough to be used to dismiss an allegation without a proper test.

But more interesting is the exposure of the culture at that SHA at the time. An email requiring the A&E target to be met 100% of the time at all Trusts over a number of weeks is included. I wonder if Dr Hakin truly believed that was possible to achieve. Not a single breach for clinical or operational reasons for days on end? At every Trust? Really? And without compromising elective activity and meeting the 18W target?

My reading of that email was that it was asking Trusts to ensure that the *recorded achievement* was 100%, regardless of the facts on the ground. Of course that is not clearly stated but those of us who have worked in organisations who wanted to achieve targets in a similar fashion will recognise the style. The unwritten instructions, contained in a message that allows the author to plead innocence and ignorance if a fiddle is exposed.

I would be interested to know if Dr Hakin believes that the recorded A&E performance at her Trusts was accurate and would have stood up to independent audit during that period. And, if those same Trusts are performing less well now, why that might be - it cannot be due to system pressures, as her (and her colleagues') evidence is that the failure was down to poor management alone.

Across the country, senior people (in Trusts and SHAs) who conspired to pressurise more junior staff to risk their careers by bending the rules knew exactly what they were doing, and they should be ashamed.