Francis QC's methodology in the Mid Staffordshire Inquiry has been criticized by many doctors. As a direct result of this Inquiry, patients are suffering. This is due to the closures affecting the acute sector in Mid Staffordshire itself. It would be interesting to note what the mortality rate is now after the disastrous results following the Mid Staffordshire Inquiry. Just goes to show that all publicity driven vehicles are not always constructive. University of North Staffordshire NHS Trust gloats about its ability to cope but queues were exposed by patients relatives sometime ago and it has failed its first inspection http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/scandal-hit-mid-staffs-nhs-6178973 . This was always going to be the case since North Staffordshire has already been failing for quite a while. Anyhow, the government set up a "Speak Up" Review for whistleblowers. It marketed it as an "inquiry" but the public should know it was never an inquiry under the Inquiries Act. This makes a difference because there should be proper standards set. As it is Sir Francis rolled in and did what he does best " pick and mix" and pour out what the government wishes the public to hear. In reality, the review had a spectacularly flawed methodology, there was no method to distinguish between those who are real whistleblowers and those who are just in it for the money and of course the net result was a series of whinges and doesn't actually help patient safety at all. Francis QC's conclusions were identical to the Bristol Inquiry many years ago. So no changes there. For all those who do not know a few interesting facts :- 1. Francis QC represented Roylance in the Bristol Inquiry. So the man who defended an NHS manager against the disasters in Bristol conducted this review. Having fought against whistleblowing, he ended up being some kind of hero for whistleblowers. Of course, the more cynical of us knew better. 2. The Medical Adviser on the Speak Up Inquiry is well presented on Freemsonry Today. An interesting website that should be read by all. Its not about conspiracy but about the GMC's directive that all things medical should be free of such influences. One just has to read about the Royal College of Surgeons to understand about the funding from the Freemasons. Again, nothing wrong with that until the GMC peddles the word "independence". Of course, the way of the medical establishment is to never blame anyone but make out that whistleblowers are all victims and somehow inept. The focus has been on whistleblowers litigating but that is not the solution to the problem. The real problem lies within each medical establishment. Its important the public understand that these serious problems with the BMA, the GMC, the Royal Colleges have not been resolved and that whistleblowing is not welcome by anyone despite their protestations. So far we have had a few reviews that have been rolled out that have told us what we already know - ie that whistleblowers find themselves in hot water after they have whistleblown. What has not been done is a detailed analysis and proper inquiry under the Inquiries Act to sort out the spectacular mess the medical establishment is in. Its probably why death rates haven't improved and the lives of medical staff have worsened. For those who believe the media, don't do so. The fact remains, whistleblowing is unsafe because each organisation fails to address the serious problems within the closed doors of the medical establishment. This in turn negatively affects patients and the public. Its important to understand the reality not believe the myth propagated by the current government and groups set up to peddle their message. Merely because famous doctors support Francis and his review doesn't mean the review is right. Internal sources to the Inquiry told me that the government had hired their "safe pair of hands" to do make them look good. No one in the medical profession actually has the freedom to speak up anymore. Secondly, reading about the suffering of whistleblowers does not resolve the problem on the shop floor - no steps have been taken to improve patient safety and healthcare for the public. In the end, it is the public that are the most important. Dr Rita Pal PS I refused to submit any material to the Francis Review. I believed it to be a pointless review with a flawed methodology. Those who supported the review and then whined to the media afterwards only have themselves to blame and no one else.