CQC whistleblower Mr Shyam Kumar’s forthcoming interview & CQC CEO’s silence

Dr Minh Alexander 18 November 2022

This is a brief post to raise awareness that an interview of Mr Shyam Kumar about his whistleblowing experience at the Care Quality Commission will take place on 24 November 2022 and will be streamed:

Health chat with Shyam Kumar CQC whistleblower 24 November 2022

Mr Shyam Kumar was appallingly treated by the CQC. An Employment Tribunal made decisive findings that he suffered detriment and was unfairly dismissed explicitly because he made public interest disclosures.

The ET rejected the CQC’s unpleasant dissembling during the ET process, which shockingly and falsely tried to cast him as a troublemaker and bully all through proceedings.

The details of the case and key documents can be found here:

Mr Shyam Kumar, Surgeon and vindicated NHS whistleblower’s case: CQC sacked a whistleblower for disclosures about its poor regulatory performance, and dug for dirt on the whistleblower

On 11 September 2022 I asked Ian Trenholm, CQC’s CEO several questions about CQC’s and his own actions with regard to Mr Kumar’s case, and CQC’s whistleblowing governance.

Despite an indication from Trenholm’s Office that there would be a response, none has been issued, This is despite reminders.

These are just a few of the unanswered questions that I put to Ian Trenholm:

“8. Would you like to comment on the fact that only 47% of CQC staff replied affirmatively in the 2019 CQC staff survey to survey question number 62:  “62. I think it is safe to challenge the way things are done in CQC”

Click to access 20200131%20People%20Survey%202019%20%20CQC%20Overall%20final.pdf

For context:

The Civil Service all organisation median for this question in 2019 was 50%.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data /file/876879/Civil_Service_People_Survey_2009_to_2019_Median_Benchmark_Scores__final.pdf

In 2019, the NHS staff survey revealed that 71.7% of staff who participated stated that they would feel secure to raise a concern about unsafe clinical care.

Would you also like to comment on why only CQC staff surveys for 2018 and 2019 are published on this CQC webpage: 

https://www.cqc.org.uk/about-us/transparency/cqc-staff-data

Were there no CQC staff surveys in 2020 and 2021, or is it that the survey was done in those years but the results were not published?

If CQC did carry out staff surveys in 2020 and 2021, will it now publish the results on this webpage?

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Minh

Dr Minh Alexander

Cc Ian Dilks CQC Chair, CQC press office”

Of concern, the CQC has been allowed to control an investigation into its own behaviour in Shyam Kumar’s case and a “selected” number of other cases of NHS trust whistleblowers.

There is no transparency about how the NHS trust cases have been selected – which gives rise to a concern that the selection is in CQC’s favour.

Of immense concern, the investigation terms of reference did NOT include any examination of CQC’s general whistleblowing governance. This is incomprehensible given: 

1. CQC’s recurrent history of victimising its own whistleblowers
2. CQC’s appalling behaviour in Mr Kumar’s case

Surely when something so serious has happened, such as a regulatory cover up, it should be automatic to review the whole system which gave rise to it?

The exclusion of any examination of CQC’s general whistleblowing governance from the investigation is a slap in the face for CQC staff. Indeed, it is intimidatory, and possibly intended to be so.

But it is not so surprising given that CQC seems not to have accounted for its workforce relations in recent years.

Also, CQC recently unlawfully evaded an FOI request about its whistleblowing governance and failed to disclose internal reports by its own Freedom To Speak Up Guardian:

CQC’s unlawful evasion of an FOI request about its whistleblowing governance

What is going on at CQC that requires such obfuscation?

No matter how much CQC tries to spin and manipulate its investigation to its advantage, a strong stink is still present.

PETITION

Please click and add your signature to this petition to reform UK whistleblowing law – whistleblowers protect us all but weak UK law leaves them wholly exposed, lets abusers off the hook and it is a threat to public safety.

Replace weak UK whistleblowing law and protect whistleblowers and the public

RELATED ITEMS

Ian Trenholm CQC CEO was previously CEO of NHS Blood and Transplant 2014-2018. There have been several recent media revelations of bullying and Race discrimination at NHS Blood and Transplant, some of which reportedly took place when Trenholm was CEO.

Leaked report shows ‘long-standing’ bullying and discrimination within national agency

CQC’s unlawful evasion of an FOI request about its whistleblowing governance

Mr Shyam Kumar, Surgeon and vindicated NHS whistleblower’s case: CQC sacked a whistleblower for disclosures about its poor regulatory performance, and dug for dirt on the whistleblower

Shyam Kumar’s whistleblowing case and the CQC’s inconsistent claims on how it processes feedback data from Specialist Advisors

Serious Case Review into Winterbourne Hospital Abuse

Witness statement of Amanda Pollard CQC whistleblower, to the Mid Staffs Public Inquiry

Resignation letter 26 January 2016 and disclosures by Barry Stanley Wilkinson, CQC whistleblower

Counting the cost of the CQC: Abuse, Whorlton Hall and CQC spin doctors

The spreading CQC Whorlton Hall scandal – emerging allegations at ‘Outstanding’ Newbus Grange. Another CQC deception?

Mr Tristan Reuser’s whistleblowing case: Scandalous employer and regulatory behaviour on FPPR

CQC’s Victimisation of Whistleblowers: Failure to Investigate Concerns

Breach of confidentiality by CQC and complicity in referring a whistleblower to the Disclosure and Barring Service

Whistleblowers Unheard by CQC

More CQC denial about collusion with employers against whistleblowers

Carl Beech, CQC inspector, convicted child sex offender and fraudster: Activities at the CQC CQC’s Asleep on the Night Shift

CQC case study. Snooping. Briefing. Porkies. And vexatiously applied ‘vexatious’ protocols.