Jump to content

IOM DHSC & MANX CARE


Cassie2
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just as an aside, CM Cannan has made a song and dance of work being done behind the scenes for an IOMG reception at Government House for the FCIOM. Lots of noise on the NPM. Nothing on the DHSC fiasco. It seems that Moorehouse asks a question and the question is a godsend to the CM, to deflect from the embarrassment of embarrassments, and to buy some time. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

But the strange thing is that if you look at her Linkedin it shows her previous employment ending in Jan 2020 and her starting a new job in Jan 2022:

image.png.be6e414b6174faee861c6da64047b506.png

Which suggests that she wasn't on secondment despite what she claims.  Of course Human Resources seem completely unaware of what the situation is in any case.

You'll note she also doesn't mention her time with the IOM DHSC.  Funny that.

It does seem bizarre that there appears to be a two year hole in her CV...?

You'd expect it either (a) to show that she was employed by Herts Valleys CCG from Mar 2017 up to Jan 2022 (including the period of her two year secondment to the IoM); or (b) to show separately that she was on secondment to IoM from Herts Valleys CCG from Jan 2020 to Jan 2022. 

One or the other, but not neither...

EDIT:  The gap seems to be "covered" by the 360 NHS leadership role

 

Edited by Ghost Ship
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ghost Ship said:

It does seem bizarre that there appears to be a two year hole in her CV...?

You'd expect it either (a) to show that she was employed by Herts Valleys CCG from Mar 2017 up to Jan 2022 (including the period of her two year secondment to the IoM); or (b) to show separately that she was on secondment to IoM from Herts Valleys CCG from Jan 2020 to Jan 2022. 

One or the other, but not neither...

 

My thoughts too when I looked earlier. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Ghost Ship said:

It does seem bizarre that there appears to be a two year hole in her CV...?

She has simply deleted the reference to the IoM - it is the same c.v. I have a copy of the earlier one, somewhere.

Also note there is a 5 year gap when she went from working in a bank to reappearing as the Managing Director of an NHS.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This case  is the lead story in doctors.net.uk. and will certainly have further wide coverage.

The article isn’t good reading -nor  the readers comments about the Island and it’s health service administration.

They all praise Dr Ranson and the most favourable comments come from someone who points out we  gained   by getting someone who had been an whistle blower in the  troubled Morecambe Bay Health Trust -Mr Peter Duffy. 

We were fortunate there but  we can’t  rely on getting excellent staff because they have been treated badly elsewhere!


If the Island is hoping to restore its reputation and be able to  attract good staff in the future and  then then it will have to be seen to take some drastic steps.

The start must be to fully and abjectly apologise to Dr Ranson for the disgraceful way she has been treated.

This must be a proper apology, not civil service-speak, not some ministerial weasel  words -we have all heard enough of that from Mr Ashford-and please, please no  “ lessons will be learnt” drivel.The apology  must include a candid , thorough condemnation of the actions of the bullies  by name, before ending with announcement of their dismissal.

 

 

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, 2112 said:

Just as an aside, CM Cannan has made a song and dance of work being done behind the scenes for an IOMG reception at Government House for the FCIOM. Lots of noise on the NPM. Nothing on the DHSC fiasco. It seems that Moorehouse asks a question and the question is a godsend to the CM, to deflect from the embarrassment of embarrassments, and to buy some time. 

He’s making a statement to Tynwald next week as already mentioned so he’s obviously not going to give interviews etc in the interim 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Banker said:

He’s making a statement to Tynwald next week as already mentioned so he’s obviously not going to give interviews etc in the interim 

Yes, we get that, but why a week after the decision was published?  Why not call an emergency Tynwald? Did the parties get an advance copy of the decision to start considering their response? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

And yet strangely the 360 Feedback rather differed with her in their opinions of Dr Ranson:

607. Because of what Miss Magson said about Dr Ranson when misleading Mrs Cope and Mr Foster in October / November 2020, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to summarise how out of step was her viewpoint compared with those who had contributed to this 360 -Colleague Feedback Summary of March-June 2021. The anonymous responses were from:  One GP.  Six Hospital Doctors.  Three nurses.  One Manager.  Two “other clinical” and  Three non-clinical.

608. Dr Ranson’s highest score was 98%. The lowest was 72%. As to Peer Average involving ten categories of abilities for assessment, five results were over 80% with two over 90%. The few de minimis adverse comments were noted by the Tribunal but lost in the endless list of favourable observations. It would be disproportionate to recite the several pages of praise but here is a cross-section of comments summarising what Manx Care lost because of the message delivered by Miss Magson:

a) The best Medical Director I have ever seen.

b) Excellent understanding of change management.

c) Dr Ranson has exercised great integrity in very difficult circumstances. A less resilient person may have crumbled but she has remained a very credible clinician and accountable Medical Director.

d) Has worked above and beyond during Covid-19.

e) Despite facing many intensely difficult, if not overtly hostile situations over the past year, she has been able to maintain a good work/life balance and to delegate tasks when appropriate.

f) Very professional hard worker, respectful, malleable and easy-going.

g) In addition to excellent clinical skills, Dr Ranson has excellent management skills.

and so on all the way through z) to aa).  Of course we discovered recently that the latest staff survey of doctors had a rather different opinion of the current management.   

Just to add the Tribunal's damning conclusion:

Based on these answers, the Tribunal considered that Miss Magson’s allegation of the need for performance management seemed (and was) ludicrous and unjustifiable. Based on these impartial assessments, the injustice of what Miss Magson did to Dr Ranson in the Grantham Meetings can be seen in stark relief.

That's about as conclusive a view on someone's judgment as it is possible to get.

Edited by Augustus
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

Yes, we get that, but why a week after the decision was published?  Why not call an emergency Tynwald? Did the parties get an advance copy of the decision to start considering their response? 

Ha!

I stayed up 'til about 2am this morning reading the judgment.  To be honest, the govt didn't need any advance notice of the decision as it must have been obvious to anybody who attended the hearing what the result would end up being.  

That judgment is about as critical as I'd have thought it was possible to be of the DHSC, Govt and Mrs Magson.  I can't see that anybody who sat through the hearing described in the judgment would not have realised that the final verdict would be very damning.  You'd have to be deluded to think otherwise.

And yes - why wait a week?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ghost Ship said:

Ha!

I stayed up 'til about 2am this morning reading the judgment.  To be honest, the govt didn't need any advance notice of the decision as it must have been obvious to anybody who attended the hearing what the result would end up being.  

That judgment is about as critical as I'd have thought it was possible to be of the DHSC, Govt and Mrs Magson.  I can't see that anybody who sat through the hearing described in the judgment would not have realised that the final verdict would be very damning.  You'd have to be deluded to think otherwise.

And yes - why wait a week?

Well, yes, but DA called it disappointing, so perhaps they really thought their actions were fair and reasonable.  If that is the case, it is even more worrying. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Well, yes, but DA called it disappointing, so perhaps they really thought their actions were fair and reasonable.  If that is the case, it is even more worrying. 

Even more worrying is that the executive believed they were acting correctly as did the Attorney Generals Office in fighting this case.

We the public are left yet again paying huge sums of money to pay for the incompetent  bullying management of our Health Service 

All must be brought to task about their public duty and responsibilities in representing the public and how they deal with the public purse 👛

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Well, yes, but DA called it disappointing, so perhaps they really thought their actions were fair and reasonable.  If that is the case, it is even more worrying. 

Quite.

I couldn't believe what I was reading about the way Dr Ranson was treated.  It was appalling.  And the way she was treated when they took her office away demonstrated puerile and barbaric behaviour.  It was a pathetic action by management.

Anybody who thought that her treatment all round was fair and reasonable treatment must be deluded...

And what about Dr Ewart?   ☹️!!!!

Anybody who thought the govt could defend this claim needs their head examining.

Then they need to be sacked...

[Coincidentally I have spent all this week following an employment tribunal discrimination case in London.  It's a claim by the barrister Allison Bailey against her own chambers and Stonewall for discrimination because of her gender critical beliefs.  I thought she'd been treated quite badly until I read the Dr Ranson decision.  Then I realised what being treated badly by your employer really meant...]

Edited by Ghost Ship
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...