Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
Sign in to follow this  
gettafa

Mental Health - Isle of Man Health and Social Care

Recommended Posts

Manx Radio - Unanimous support for mental health report in Tynwald

Although acknowledging there may be some minor problems, it would appear then that everything is more-or-less smelling of roses.

However, probably timed to coincide with the debate of the report, a whistleblower's account of mental health services has been published in Isle of Man Examiner, although the headline succinctly provides the DHSC response

1993502053_20190115IMEp04MentalHealthwhistleblowerclaims.thumb.jpg.9dc9baba0b0f1b8dc54adf1f2024f2e1.jpg

It's an interesting one. That new unit cost a few million pounds and was opened with all the usual pomp and circumstance.

However this subject is one that few people are particularly bothered about unless it concerns them or a family member directly.

The Chief Minister, Howard Quayle MHK, has officially opened Manannan Court, the Island’s new £7.2 million inpatient mental health facility.

Quote

 

The Chief Minister said:

'Bringing about this new facility is one of the highlights from my first term of office as an MHK and from my time as Minister for Health and Social Care.

'I was insistent when I became Minister that we double efforts to support the Mental Health Service and begin a programme of work to transform care.  Manannan Court is one of the fruits of that labour and represents a real team effort from patients, carers, professionals, the third sector, managers and politicians.  It is a facility the Island can rightly be proud of.'

 

 

Well, that's the facts, but as this is a forum, and if you want my opinion, well for good reasons, I see the matter more as the whistleblower does.

Edited by gettafa
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think the IOM Examiner ought to know better than to publish this stuff.  I'm in favour of whistleblowing where appropriate, but concerns ought to be raised internally in the first instance, with your line manager, admin staff, internal whistleblowing procedures or whatever.  Then, and only then, if you get no joy doing that, should you go to the Press.  Conspicuously absent from the whistleblower's claims is anything to the effect that "I raised my concerns with my manager but (s)he told me to go away"   

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BallaDoc said:

Personally, I think the IOM Examiner ought to know better than to publish this stuff.  I'm in favour of whistleblowing where appropriate, but concerns ought to be raised internally in the first instance, with your line manager, admin staff, internal whistleblowing procedures or whatever.  Then, and only then, if you get no joy doing that, should you go to the Press.  Conspicuously absent from the whistleblower's claims is anything to the effect that "I raised my concerns with my manager but (s)he told me to go away"   

I thought so too. Felt the paper was far too quick to run with some unsubstantiated tittle-tattle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of backs up Dilli's claims on a previous topic that not all whistleblower claims are genuine. Which in turn has a negative impact for genuine whistleblowers.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to sort of measure that with the fact that all whistleblowers will be deemed not genuine by those they are whistleblowing on. That's why the call is always to name names. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Augustus said:

I thought so too. Felt the paper was far too quick to run with some unsubstantiated tittle-tattle.

Yes, a bit like MF really.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BallaDoc said:

 concerns ought to be raised internally in the first instance, with your line manager, admin staff, internal whistleblowing procedures or whatever. 

Not in the experience of any of the people I know who have actually tried that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, the stinking enigma said:

You have to sort of measure that with the fact that all whistleblowers will be deemed not genuine by those they are whistleblowing on. That's why the call is always to name names.  

The pathetic taunt to name names is a tactic used by bullies on here and elsewhere to dismiss people's claims even when we all know the claims are true. They know full well that people can't name names, for obvious reasons. It's just silly.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, gettafa said:

Well, that's the facts, but as this is a forum, and if you want my opinion, well for good reasons, I see the matter more as the whistleblower does.

I agree with you. It makes me laugh the comments above and just shows how fucked up government management and reporting lines are. Everyone has a right to whistle blow. If things are being run by a bunch of dickheads that last thing any sane person with an ounce of common sense does is approach said dickheads directly and tell them that they’re incompetent and that they want their incompetence to be investigated by their boss. It’s totally nonsensical. You’re just writing your own career death warrant no matter what official reporting lines require you to do. I really can’t believe some of the comments above in that context. Just shows you how irretrievably doomed our health services are at improving things for service users if staff can’t whistle blow confidentially. You assume concerns have been raised as far as they can before they have taken this sort of action as nothing has happened to change anything. 

They need to put an anonymous whistle blowing facility in like most of the banks have because the banks are actually interested in weeding out muppets, fraudsters, crooks and people who are useless at their jobs from their businesses. Not in covering up for them like IOMG. Hence reports are taken seriously, investigated by independent people, and finally pursued (or not) after an independent opinion on whether there is enough evidence to pursue or if the report is a waste of time. It’s not hard. It’s called good governance and actually stops people going to the papers out of desperation. If only IOMG got that concept it might help. 

Edited by thesultanofsheight
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Augustus said:

I thought so too. Felt the paper was far too quick to run with some unsubstantiated tittle-tattle.

Oh come on, it's a bit more than "tittle-tattle".

Why would anyone take the risk to contact the newspapers. I am sure that Adrian Darbyshire, the writer of the article, would have satisfied himself that the whistleblower was bona fide.

Incidentally, in the last decade or so, how many people have killed themself or have died in this unit or it's predecessor?

Edited by gettafa
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, gettafa said:

Incidentally, in the last decade or so, how many people have killed themself or have died in this unit or it's predecessor?

I think that the more pertinent question would be how many people have killed themselves shortly after being discharged as not being a suicide risk. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gettafa said:

Oh come on, it's a bit more than "tittle-tattle".

Why would anyone take the risk to contact the newspapers. I am sure that Adrian Darbyshire, the writer of the article, would have satisfied himself that the whistleblower was bona fide.

Incidentally, in the last decade or so, how many people have killed themself or have died in this unit or it's predecessor?

Oh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, thesultanofsheight said:

I agree with you. It makes me laugh the comments above and just shows how fucked up government management and reporting lines are. Everyone has a right to whistle blow. If things are being run by a bunch of dickheads that last thing any sane person with an ounce of common sense does is approach said dickheads directly and tell them that they’re incompetent and that they want their incompetence to be investigated by their boss. It’s totally nonsensical. You’re just writing your own career death warrant no matter what official reporting lines require you to do. I really can’t believe some of the comments above in that context. Just shows you how irretrievably doomed our health services are at improving things for service users if staff can’t whistle blow confidentially. You assume concerns have been raised as far as they can before they have taken this sort of action as nothing has happened to change anything. 

They need to put an anonymous whistle blowing facility in like most of the banks have because the banks are actually interested in weeding out muppets, fraudsters, crooks and people who are useless at their jobs from their businesses. Not in covering up for them like IOMG. Hence reports are taken seriously, investigated by independent people, and finally pursued (or not) after an independent opinion on whether there is enough evidence to pursue or if the report is a waste of time. It’s not hard. It’s called good governance and actually stops people going to the papers out of desperation. If only IOMG got that concept it might help. 

The Government culture  is one of self defence.

Attack any person who disagrees, apposes, criticises their view or stance.

A whistle blower is only created when the culture they live in fails to recognise or respond to legitimate concerns.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Whatnonsence said:

A whistle blower is only created when the culture they live in fails to recognise or respond to legitimate concerns.

The problem is the IOM is slowly changing. This must be the third ‘whistle blowing’ expose the papers has done in 6 months. We had one at the airport, and this is now the second from the DHSC if I recall. People are getting fed up and pissed off with the way government is being run and the more changes to hours, wages, and terms and conditions that happen will push a lot more people to think they aren’t paid to deal with the bad management, bullying and the other shit they have to deal with. The IOM is less able to ostracize these people now too. A lot aren’t Manx and will just bugger off somewhere else taking a lot of the potential power away from some of the Manxies who generally bear grudges like life-long personal vendettas against people who have crossed them. 

Edited by thesultanofsheight
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×