logo
Overlooking sexual harassment against health staff ‘risks patient safety'

Overlooking sexual harassment against health staff ‘risks patient safety'

Medics claim that overlooking these incidents allows other toxic behaviours 'to perpetuate'.
It comes as members of the British Medical Association (BMA) called for NHS trusts to include active bystander training – which aims to equip people with the skills to challenge unacceptable conduct – in mandatory training programmes.
Delegates at the union's annual representative meeting (ARM) in Liverpool also voted for the BMA to lobby for a national anonymous reporting system for victims of sexual harassment.
Dr Helen Neary, co-chairwoman of the BMA consultants committee, said: 'People are bystanders at all levels, and a working culture that turns a blind eye to this behaviour is also a risk to patient safety, enabling other poor behaviours to perpetuate.'
The motion urged NHS organisations to probe allegations of sexual misconduct using trained investigators external to the trust.
Dr Neary added: 'No one should feel unsafe at work. Yet the appalling truth is that doctors, disproportionately women, are still subject to sexual harassment, abuse and assault in the workplace – often by their fellow doctors. This has to stop.
'Not only is it obviously completely unacceptable and has a devastating impact on victims, but also affects the quality of care and workforce capacity as poor behaviours will do nothing to retain staff in the NHS.'
In March, the latest NHS staff survey found one in 12 (8.82%) of workers were the target of unwanted sexual behaviour such as offensive comments, touching and assaults.
The proportion was similar to that reported in 2023 (8.79%) when the question was first asked as part of the survey.
Last October, NHS England launched a new national sexual misconduct policy framework to ensure trusts had robust policies in place for staff to report incidents.
Speaking to delegates at the BMA ARM in Liverpool, Professor Bhairavi Sapra said that while the framework is a 'very welcome first step', it is not mandatory.
'It is up to individual employers to adopt it, and even then, perpetrators can simply move on from one employer to another without accountability for those in positions of power to prevent this behaviour,' she added.
'Worse still, there is no national reporting mechanism. That means if someone wants to report an incident months later in a different workplace, they face an uphill battle, often alone.
'Survivors have told us why they don't come forward. They fear being told they're overreacting.
'They fear retaliation or reputational damage. They fear nothing will change, and sadly, they are not wrong.
'Investigations, when they do happen, are rarely trauma informed, often the process itself can feel like another form of harm.'
Dr Neary said: 'As the trade union and professional association for all doctors in the UK – from those beginning their careers as medical students to retirement and beyond – the BMA welcomes the legal obligation placed on the NHS to protect employees from sexual harassment.
'This vote makes some excellent suggestions on how this work can go further, including anonymous reporting, that will encourage those concerned about coming forward to do so, and better equipping doctors on how they can support colleagues when they witness sexual harassment at work.'
Prof Sapra also claimed the 'power imbalance' in the medical profession is 'stark', adding: 'Junior staff rely on senior medical staff for training, for references and for their very careers.
'That dependency makes them especially vulnerable and often silent.'
An NHS England spokesperson said: 'It is totally unacceptable that NHS staff experience sexual misconduct or harassment at work – this behaviour has no place in the health service, and all organisations must take robust and compassionate action to prevent it.
'The NHS Sexual Safety Charter has been adopted by every Integrated Care Board and NHS Trust in England, which encourages consideration of external, independent investigators in complex or sensitive cases – and all NHS organisations should ensure that those leading these processes are properly trained to handle them with the seriousness and sensitivity they require.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Watchdog acted ‘irrationally' in registering private gender clinic, court told
Watchdog acted ‘irrationally' in registering private gender clinic, court told

North Wales Chronicle

time43 minutes ago

  • North Wales Chronicle

Watchdog acted ‘irrationally' in registering private gender clinic, court told

Former nurse Susan Evans and a mother known as XX are taking legal action against the Care Quality Commission (CQC) over its decision to register the Gender Plus Hormone Clinic (GPHC) in Birmingham in January last year. The two are also challenging the regulator's decision to continue the clinic's registration and to allow it to prescribe cross-sex hormone treatment to 16 and 17-year-olds without conditions, made last December. The clinic, which was rated outstanding by the watchdog last year, treats people aged 16 and older, including through prescribing gender-affirming – masculinising or feminising – hormones, but, in line with the NHS, does not prescribe puberty blockers. Lawyers representing the two women told a hearing on Tuesday that the watchdog did not consider aspects that were 'obviously material' when making its decision, including the NHS's stance on hormone treatment for children aged 16 and 17 in light of the Cass Review. The watchdog is defending the claim, telling the court that it was 'abundantly clear that there was ample evidence' for its decision, while lawyers for the company which runs the clinic, Gender Plus Healthcare Limited, said the legal action was 'fatally flawed'. Opening the women's case on Tuesday, barrister Tom Cross KC said the clinic was believed to be the only hormone treatment provider to 16 and 17-year-olds in England, and that the claimants' concern was about safety, with Ms Evans previously stating she believed the registration 'creates a significant risk of a two-tier approach'. Mr Cross said: 'At arriving at the conclusion that the provider should continue to be registered without any conditions … the CQC has acted irrationally.' He added: 'It has not factored into its conclusion a number of aspects of the process on the NHS, informed by the Cass Review, which serve as important safeguards for children within the cohort and were obviously material.' The barrister said that had the CQC factored these in, it would have 'decided to exercise its power to halt the treatment' of under-18s, and that its decision was 'simply not open to them'. He claimed that 'at the very least' the court 'should require the CQC to think again about the adequacy of the safeguards'. Hormone treatment was previously provided on the NHS at the now-closed Gender Identity Development Service (Gids) run by the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, where Ms Evans previously worked. But a review published by Baroness Cass in April last year said that 'extreme caution' should be demonstrated when deciding to prescribe the treatment to 16 and 17-year-olds, and that there should be 'clear clinical rationale for providing hormones at this stage rather than waiting until an individual reaches 18'. The NHS has opened three specialist children's gender clinics and has plans for a further five covering the seven NHS regions in England by the end of 2026, but has said that all recommendations for hormone interventions must be endorsed by a national multi-disciplinary team (MDT). It is understood that the MDT has not yet received any recommendations for hormone treatment for 16 and 17-year-olds, since the Cass Review. GPHC was set up by Dr Aidan Kelly and is led by nurse consultant Paul Carruthers, who both worked at Gids, and has previously said it primarily treats patients aged between 16 and 25, using its own MDT. But Mr Cross said in written submissions that in the year up to June 2024, GPHC has 'accepted almost every single patient that it considered' for hormone treatment, and that the contrast with the NHS 'could not be more stark'. He said there were 'a number of key differences' between GPHC and the NHS safeguards, including that referrals to the former came from Dr Kelly's company, Kelly Psychology, which is unregulated. He said: 'It is, and ought to have been, obvious that the unregulated nature of the referrer enhanced the risk of patient safety.' He concluded: 'Either the CQC had to impose a condition which rationally ensured patient safety, or, if that were not possible, had to decide not to continue the registration.' Jamie Burton KC, for the CQC, said that there was 'ample evidence' that Kelly Psychology 'did not pose an unacceptable risk' to patients, and that a 'significant number' of those assessed by the company were not referred for treatment at GPHC. The court was told that the CQC found no evidence of 'improper decision making or anything that might flag a concern', and that the clinic was found to be 'committed to the safety and best interests of its patients'. He continued: 'CQC found GHPC to be acting in line with national guidance, including the NHS England 2024 Criteria. 'It found nothing to suggest that this was merely lip service or that GPHC management held an ideological commitment that was undermining its professional and regulatory commitments, or otherwise threatening the safety of patients.' He also said that the CQC 'had regard' to NHS processes, and that there could not be 'any legitimate doubt about the correctness of the ultimate outcome, or GPHC's continued registration'. He said: 'In its professional judgment, it found that the provider was taking reasonable steps to safeguard 16 and 17-year-olds by way of its existing processes.' Peter Mant KC, for Gender Plus Healthcare Limited, said that there was no legal requirement for a private provider to mirror NHS care and that the claimants' concerns 'do not have a high-quality evidence base'. He continued that the clinic's model was 'entirely consistent' with the Cass Review and NHS policy, and that patients 'no longer routinely have any input' from Kelly Psychology. He added that concerns related to the rate of accepting new patients were 'unjustified', and that the court should not 'go behind' the CQC's decision. The hearing before Mrs Justice Eady is expected to conclude on Wednesday, with a judgment expected in writing at a later date.

Give doctors work phones to tackle burnout and abuse, medics say
Give doctors work phones to tackle burnout and abuse, medics say

North Wales Chronicle

time43 minutes ago

  • North Wales Chronicle

Give doctors work phones to tackle burnout and abuse, medics say

It comes as one doctor described using six apps on her personal device to do her job 'safely', and revealed the trust she works at relies on WhatsApp to fill locum shifts. Currently, there is no national NHS England policy that requires trusts to provide work phones to doctors or other staff. Delegates at the BMA's annual representative meeting in Liverpool voted for the union to demand employer-funded mobile phones for all medical staff to carry out NHS or university work, while rejecting any expectation that medics should use personal devices for professional communication. Dr Latifa Patel, chairwoman of the BMA's representative body and workforce lead, said: 'Many workplaces offer devices for professional communication, and the NHS should be no different. 'Doctors often work across the hospital site and in the community, including home visits, and need to be contactable. 'In recent years, we have seen an increasing reliance on doctors' own personal mobile phones.' BMA members also called for 'robust' safeguards to protect doctors from inappropriate contact, including sexual harassment, while advocating for clear boundaries between work life and personal life to reduce burnout. Dr Patel added: 'Using a work device, like a mobile phone, can help to define boundaries between work and home life, and significantly reduce burnout – something we know many doctors experience, and which is undoubtedly contributing to them either reducing their hours or leaving the NHS altogether. 'We also know some doctors are impacted by inappropriate contact, such as abuse or sexual harassment, sometimes in the form of unwanted messages and communication outside of work. 'Removing the reliance on personal devices is an action employers can take to mitigate these risks. 'We invite the Government to work with us to see how these devices can be introduced in the NHS as part of efforts to improve doctor wellbeing.' Emma Andrews told delegates she uses six different apps on her personal phone to do her job 'safely and to do it well'. She spoke of one incident where a medical team would not have been able to locate a patient in an 'obscure' room without using WhatsApp, with locum shifts in her trust also filled using the app. 'Before medicine, I was a civil servant, and I was provided with a phone, a laptop, because I needed it to do my job. 'It also provided security to the departments I worked in, so that government business only happened on government devices. 'Albeit it's not unreasonable to expect an employer to provide the tools I need to do my job. 'We shouldn't be subsidising the NHS with our data, with our battery life or with our work-life balance.'

Watchdog acted ‘irrationally' in registering private gender clinic, court told
Watchdog acted ‘irrationally' in registering private gender clinic, court told

Leader Live

timean hour ago

  • Leader Live

Watchdog acted ‘irrationally' in registering private gender clinic, court told

Former nurse Susan Evans and a mother known as XX are taking legal action against the Care Quality Commission (CQC) over its decision to register the Gender Plus Hormone Clinic (GPHC) in Birmingham in January last year. The two are also challenging the regulator's decision to continue the clinic's registration and to allow it to prescribe cross-sex hormone treatment to 16 and 17-year-olds without conditions, made last December. The clinic, which was rated outstanding by the watchdog last year, treats people aged 16 and older, including through prescribing gender-affirming – masculinising or feminising – hormones, but, in line with the NHS, does not prescribe puberty blockers. Lawyers representing the two women told a hearing on Tuesday that the watchdog did not consider aspects that were 'obviously material' when making its decision, including the NHS's stance on hormone treatment for children aged 16 and 17 in light of the Cass Review. The watchdog is defending the claim, telling the court that it was 'abundantly clear that there was ample evidence' for its decision, while lawyers for the company which runs the clinic, Gender Plus Healthcare Limited, said the legal action was 'fatally flawed'. Opening the women's case on Tuesday, barrister Tom Cross KC said the clinic was believed to be the only hormone treatment provider to 16 and 17-year-olds in England, and that the claimants' concern was about safety, with Ms Evans previously stating she believed the registration 'creates a significant risk of a two-tier approach'. Mr Cross said: 'At arriving at the conclusion that the provider should continue to be registered without any conditions … the CQC has acted irrationally.' He added: 'It has not factored into its conclusion a number of aspects of the process on the NHS, informed by the Cass Review, which serve as important safeguards for children within the cohort and were obviously material.' The barrister said that had the CQC factored these in, it would have 'decided to exercise its power to halt the treatment' of under-18s, and that its decision was 'simply not open to them'. He claimed that 'at the very least' the court 'should require the CQC to think again about the adequacy of the safeguards'. Hormone treatment was previously provided on the NHS at the now-closed Gender Identity Development Service (Gids) run by the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, where Ms Evans previously worked. But a review published by Baroness Cass in April last year said that 'extreme caution' should be demonstrated when deciding to prescribe the treatment to 16 and 17-year-olds, and that there should be 'clear clinical rationale for providing hormones at this stage rather than waiting until an individual reaches 18'. The NHS has opened three specialist children's gender clinics and has plans for a further five covering the seven NHS regions in England by the end of 2026, but has said that all recommendations for hormone interventions must be endorsed by a national multi-disciplinary team (MDT). It is understood that the MDT has not yet received any recommendations for hormone treatment for 16 and 17-year-olds, since the Cass Review. GPHC was set up by Dr Aidan Kelly and is led by nurse consultant Paul Carruthers, who both worked at Gids, and has previously said it primarily treats patients aged between 16 and 25, using its own MDT. But Mr Cross said in written submissions that in the year up to June 2024, GPHC has 'accepted almost every single patient that it considered' for hormone treatment, and that the contrast with the NHS 'could not be more stark'. He said there were 'a number of key differences' between GPHC and the NHS safeguards, including that referrals to the former came from Dr Kelly's company, Kelly Psychology, which is unregulated. He said: 'It is, and ought to have been, obvious that the unregulated nature of the referrer enhanced the risk of patient safety.' He concluded: 'Either the CQC had to impose a condition which rationally ensured patient safety, or, if that were not possible, had to decide not to continue the registration.' Jamie Burton KC, for the CQC, said that there was 'ample evidence' that Kelly Psychology 'did not pose an unacceptable risk' to patients, and that a 'significant number' of those assessed by the company were not referred for treatment at GPHC. The court was told that the CQC found no evidence of 'improper decision making or anything that might flag a concern', and that the clinic was found to be 'committed to the safety and best interests of its patients'. He continued: 'CQC found GHPC to be acting in line with national guidance, including the NHS England 2024 Criteria. 'It found nothing to suggest that this was merely lip service or that GPHC management held an ideological commitment that was undermining its professional and regulatory commitments, or otherwise threatening the safety of patients.' He also said that the CQC 'had regard' to NHS processes, and that there could not be 'any legitimate doubt about the correctness of the ultimate outcome, or GPHC's continued registration'. He said: 'In its professional judgment, it found that the provider was taking reasonable steps to safeguard 16 and 17-year-olds by way of its existing processes.' Peter Mant KC, for Gender Plus Healthcare Limited, said that there was no legal requirement for a private provider to mirror NHS care and that the claimants' concerns 'do not have a high-quality evidence base'. He continued that the clinic's model was 'entirely consistent' with the Cass Review and NHS policy, and that patients 'no longer routinely have any input' from Kelly Psychology. He added that concerns related to the rate of accepting new patients were 'unjustified', and that the court should not 'go behind' the CQC's decision. The hearing before Mrs Justice Eady is expected to conclude on Wednesday, with a judgment expected in writing at a later date.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store