Report into alleged ‘toxic' atmosphere in Children's Health Ireland has been sent to the gardaí

Irish Independent

2 days ago

The persons involved have not had an opportunity to respond, the Taoiseach Micheal Martin noted in refusing to publish the report.
But they may now have that chance in any interviews undertaken by detectives.
Meanwhile the general collapse in morale is set out in the 2021 report and makes for disturbing reading.
There is an alleged case where a consultant outside the country was allegedly refusing to allow another to help a child leave hospital in time for their First Holy Communion. This accusation, however, is currently unproven.
The report looks into alleged bullying and disruptive behaviour at Children's Health Ireland and involved 49 interviews with 44 participants over a four-month period. The average duration of each interview was two hours.
The report says: 'Over the course of this examination, 89pc of participants interviewed described a culture where change was slow, which lacked governance and robust processes, and was heavily influenced by strong and exceptionally challenging personalities working in the organisation.
'Within (detail deleted), 66pc of participants interviewed acknowledged that there was a lack of collaborative working. During the interview process, multiple participants described unprofessional and disruptive behaviour from consultants that significantly contributes to the culture which exists today.'
Six consultants were identified only be letters of the alphabet, running from A to F, although there are other health professionals named elsewhere in the report.
It says that '27pc of participants described unprofessional behaviour from consultant A and 52pc from consultant D.
'As the examination progressed, additional areas for exploration were highlighted by participants which directly related to behaviours of particular staff.'
ADVERTISEMENT
Learn more
A senior admin staffer and a consultant were described as having considerably challenging behaviour by 100pc of their colleagues with whom these concerns were specifically explored.
"These behaviours, which appear to have gone unmanaged by site leadership, have incrementally led to a number of challenges for the organisation, such as staff attrition, overall staff health and wellbeing, operational and financial impacts and — of huge significance — quality issues, which ultimately have significant potential for impacting patient safety," the report says.
Nearly half of participants (48pc) voiced concerns about the effectiveness and decision-making of site leadership.
'Of participants interviewed, 43pc expressed that they wanted to see real change across CHI and were willing to be part of the solution.
'Many participants describe significant inter-personal difficulties among the surgical team, leading to what many narrate as a toxic environment.'
The report also refers to a series of emails back and forth between general surgeons and other specialists, disputing what was in the remit of one another's roles.
The tone of the emails between the parties is said to suggest 'a complete lack of professionalism by some, ultimately wasting professional consultants' time, negatively impacting relations and significantly potentially affecting patient care'.
The report also makes clear that senior hospital figures disputed the smallest things, such as individual items to be used in treating patients.
There was an apparent inclination amongst some to pass the buck or to avoid taking responsibility, which sometimes involve disputed about who did what in Monday to Friday working.
In one case, consultant D called out 'unprofessional behaviour and abuse of the emergency list' on the alleged part of another.
Consultant D is said to have written: 'The Department cannot have things both ways. This is why I have stopped going to these meetings.
'Decisions are made and apparently agreed, and then after the meeting, individuals just do their own thing.'
Meanwhile, consultant E supposedly said of consultant D that their conduct and actions 'have the potential to undermine professional working relationships and patient care. This, unfortunately, has not been an isolated incident, but rather a pattern of behaviour.'
In one case, a consultant was asked to attend a special meeting, but the email received no response for a period of six weeks.
Finally, there was a response which involved no retraction of a previous statement, as requested.
Instead it said: 'I acknowledge receipt. I have nothing further to add.'
'The report says the above scenario is a snapshot of the problematic communication and fraught relationships' that exist between general surgeons and specialists.
'Although patient care was not compromised in this instance, the communication style, accusatory language and indeed, unprofessional antics that continued over this period add to further compromise inter-interpersonal relations, heightened levels of mistrust among colleagues, and ultimately are a distraction from patient-centric care.'
The authors noted that 'research has shown that poor behaviours such as verbal abuse, publicly humiliating others, and discontinuation of communication (such as not engaging in meetings), destabilises psychological safety and undermines speaking up about patient safety issues.
'This increases the risk of harm to patients.'