News

Tribunal case rules against whistleblowing clinician over ‘dysfunctional’ cancer unit

A tribunal has ruled against an NHS whistleblower in a row over the reconfiguration of a cancer unit in London, but found that the trust delayed making changes to its “dysfunctional” unit due to infighting.

The case was brought by Whittington Health Trust’s lead cancer clinician Pauline Leonard, who said she felt “betrayed” after changes to its lung cancer service were delayed amidst bitter disputes between staff.

An employment tribunal found that the London trust was reluctant to commit to changes “as the team is opposed to it” and that the majority of the Lung Cancer Multidiscipline Team (MDT) were opposed to a merger of two cancer units at the time.

There were widespread concerns over the merger, but the tribunal dismissed Leonard’s case and ruled they had found no evidence of a person having failed, was failing, or was likely to fail to comply with any legal objections to which they were subject or that anyone’s safety had been endangered.

At the hearing the judges said there was no dispute that the trust’s Lung MDT team had been “dysfunctional,” and there were plans for more joined-up working with a neighbouring trust, University College London Hospital FT (UCLH), which achieves significantly higher survival rates.

Leonard was “vehemently opposed” to the merger and said that if UCLH became involved in direct diagnostic and treatment interventions there was a risk the trust might then influence patients to have all subsequent treatment at UCLH as well.

The tribunal judgement quoted extensively from a letter sent by London Cancer – an ICS as part of UCLH – to Whittington in 2015, which “shared the concerns about lung cancer outcomes and MDT functioning” and mentioned the joined-up working between the two trusts.

The letter read: “However, this is yet to bear fruit and we have now reached the point where several members of the UCLH lung cancer team that gave expertise to the Whittington MDT have withdrawn because they feel the practice is unsafe and decisions are inappropriately dominated by a single individual (the claimant).”

Three members based at UCLH said they all felt that rarely a patient decision had been made that they agree with but all feel fearful to communicate this.

Leonard, giving evidence to the trial, said she felt “numb and ganged up on” when this letter was read to her and that she was “betrayed” by the three UCLH consultants’ assertions.

The tribunal ruled that they had found no evidence of a person having failed, was failing, or was likely to fail to comply with any legal objections to which they were subject, or that anyone’s safety had been endangered.

Irwin Mitchell, representing Leonard who resigned from her role in 2016, said they were appealing the decision.

Enjoying NHE? Subscribe here to receive our weekly news updates or click here to receive a copy of the magazine!