Like Princess Diana, Dr David Drew has captured the public heart and crowned himself Prince of Whistleblowing. He is now an expert at making use of various causes to vent the issues concerning whistleblowing. Drew was last seen writing in the Independent on the issues concerning junior doctors but for some reason ended up diverting to whistleblowing. I am sure junior doctors in trouble are just pleased to have a name, a consultant etc. I do though hope all those juniors do take their time to read the evidence presented in this report. https://www.scribd.com/doc/305017056/Report-Criticizes-Dr-David-Drew Of course, we are still waiting for the reports/judgments vindicating Dr David Drew. Some of us have been waiting for many years. What is said in the media is not quite the narrative we know in the medical sectors. He is supported by all the leading whistleblowers, Raj Mattu and no doubt they both joyfully attended the meeting with Mr Hunt at the Department of Health. Those were the days when Hunt and the Telegraph bleated on about this meeting with the elite whistleblowing club pre Francis Review. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10901859/NHS-whistleblowers-to-air-complaints-with-Jeremy-Hunt.html The media bandwagon on Dr Drew has carried on. The only problem is that there are rumours circulating that he is subject to litigation relating to his book. Media tales of woe are alright until some of us demand the small print. Small print is important because it gives the public some guidance as to what is true and what is not. Anyway, here is the report. It can be downloaded for free. https://www.scribd.com/doc/305017056/Report-Criticizes-Dr-David-Drew I have quoted from the report. [ I hope the powers that be realise that these are quotes and not my own words] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://www.scribd.com/doc/305017056/Report-Criticizes-Dr-David-Drew "Dr Drew did try to down play the relevance of this by stating that the witness statement was not signed by him – which indeed it was not. However he was compelled to accept that he had submitted it to the Francis Inquiry with the intention of it being accepted by the Inquiry as being true. This seems to us a clear example of Dr Drew misrepresenting evidence to fit the narrative that he wants to tell. That he was prepared to do so in a witness statement submitted to a public inquiry is in our view significant" "These factors mean that his accounts of events are often unreliable, and sometimes very obviously so. We have set out below various examples, of different sorts, of this feature of his evidence". Worth reading from H3 onwards. Page 57 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Overall, I felt this was a well investigated, detailed and balanced report. It is quite a critical report against Dr David Drew who has already faced losing in all Employment Courts. Dr Drew maybe appealing this but like the Francis Review, he was the one asking to participate. One assumes that he always thought the investigation would be fair. If he didn't think it was fair, he wouldn't have participated. The public should note that the Francis Review on whistleblowing had a poor method. It did not distinguish between whistleblowers and non-whistleblowers. Indeed, it merely took "stories" on face value. For this and many reasons, the NHS cannot rely on the recommendations of the Francis Review. The rest of us whistleblowers are judged on reports that vindicate us and/or court hearings. Dr Drew though is special. He is judged by far lower standards than any of us have had to face. I suspect that is the priceless advantage of being a consultant and perhaps it may teach us all to just take that minute to read the small print. The difference between hype and small print may well be vital. At the end of it all, we have to ask ourselves this, has the 200K used for this investigation and the endless Trust legal costs incurred been worth it? There is a £22 billion black hole in the NHS at present eroding patient safety. [ http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/15/nhs-22bn-funding-black-hole-report-public-accounts-committee] Only patients are important now not the endless narrative of one doctor. PS Thanks to my two friends for supplying me with this light reading.