Nobles Hospital

[Patient centred]

Is it true that that the newly appointed “Director of transformation” at Nobles, who refused to meet with the hospital consultants, has been given their marching orders/paid off. If so, who keeps making these astonishingly poor value appointments? 

[Uhtred]

17 minutes ago, Patient centred said:

Is it true that that the newly appointed “Director of transformation” at Nobles, who refused to meet with the hospital consultants, has been given their marching orders/paid off. If so, who keeps making these astonishingly poor value appointments? 

Hasn’t this person only been recruited very recently to the most key post-Michaels review role? (Thus wouldn’t that therefore be rather more than simply ‘at Nobles’?). And why on earth would they refuse to meet with medical staff? If your speculation is correct this would be an astonishing situation. I think that the person is/was a Mr. Spicer.

Edited to add - the 2 year fixed term post of Health and Care Transformation Director was advertised in the summer with a closing date of 21st July. On 5th October IOM ‘Newspapers’ reported the appointment of Mr. John Spicer. (In the same story that revealed the new DHSC CEO would be Ms. Magson; she who will be working here for 3 days per week). Minister Ashford frothed with delight at their respective appointments and trotted out the usual off-the-shelf platitudinous quotes. The Chief Secretary, Mr. Greenhow, was also ‘confident that John is the right man for the job’.

[P.K.]

He doesn't tool about on a mobile chicane known as a Harley Davidson by chance....?

[John Wright]

If true, that he’s left, and refused to meet consultants it raises interesting questions for the DHSC modernisation project.

They may not be the apparently obvious ones either.

First, is whether Michaels is doomed to fail.

Second, do vested interest groups wield too much power, leading to the first point?

Third, is a scalp, claimed by one of those interest groups?

Fourth, is whether it’s necessary, for a change implementation oversight manager, sitting, detached, in Cabinet Office, with a DHSC CEO, head of Health, Head of Social Services and Hospital, and Nursing Directors, doing the day to day work to meet with vested interest groups? Others, including OP,  assume it is. I’m not so sure.

[wrighty]

He’s not refused to meet with consultants - I’ve met him, as have others. He turned down an invitation to attend the medical staff committee meeting, but there has only been one such meeting since he started, and it’s far more likely that he was unavailable at that time, rather than a general snub. 
 

To address John’s 4th point - yes it is necessary. Successful transformation happens from the ground up, not the other way round. It’s doctors, nurses, therapists, technicians etc that actually deliver healthcare - unless they’re engaged by the process nothing will happen by simply changing a department’s name, fiddling with the organisational chart, and issuing emails with new policies. 
 

I genuinely don’t know if he’s left or not. I’ve heard the rumours, obviously, but until I see an email from the chief sec, or the minister, it’s still just a rumour. I hope not - he seemed like a good bloke to me, and as we know from Premiership Football, changing the manager ever 6 months doesn’t usually win the title. 

[Patient centred]

1 hour ago, wrighty said:

He’s not refused to meet with consultants - I’ve met him, as have others. He turned down an invitation to attend the medical staff committee meeting, but there has only been one such meeting since he started, and it’s far more likely that he was unavailable at that time, rather than a general snub. 

I think it was 2 meetings although maybe the second hadn’t happened by the time he left (if he has). Perhaps being new to the place and role, attendance might have been seen to be a priority?

You do not need a post called “Director of transformational change” on an island as small as ours. 

Who keeps making these bad appointments? They clearly have very poor judgement. I predict the same will happen with the part time, fixed term CEO. 

I also hear that one of the current consultants who enjoys a lot of trust and has succeeded in bringing warring factions together as a clinical director didn’t even get shortlisted for the medical director role. Seems to be replaying the farce of when Adrian Dashfield was passed over for the role by outsider Jugnu. A complete and unmitigated disaster. Lessons are not being learned. One can only conclude that those at the top do not want real change. They want to look like they are doing something whilst maintaining the status quo. They do not want anyone at the top who knows where to shine the torch. Politics seemingly more important than money and certainly more important than patient safety or quality of care.

[Uhtred]

16 minutes ago, Patient centred said:

You do not need a post called “Director of transformational change” on an island as small as ours.

You may be correct. Michaels and all of Tynwald disagree.

If Mr. Spicer has left, and the reason is obstruction/opposition from vested interest groups - medical or otherwise - then that needs to be jumped on immediately. The NHS is for patients. Perhaps some people need a reminder about that.

[Uhtred]

They may not be ‘bad appointments’ (though equally they may be) but they’ll certainly be disruptive and unhelpful appointments if senior people whose mandate  is to lead fundamental change are choosing to depart (or being “invited” to leave)  after 2 months in post.

[Patient centred]

1 hour ago, MrPB said:

Who is saying they are bad appointments just because they leave quickly? It probably means they appointed the right candidate who then found out almost immediately how intransigent and deeply embedded the core management structure actually is and couldn’t be bothered staying around. 

You could be absolutely right. 
If The government doesn’t want to change anything, a great appointment would indeed come here, realise that’s their hands are tied and it’s a waste of their time/ demoralising and leave. One that’s less great might put their feet up and take the cash (?jugnu). Either way, same pattern repeating itself and you have got to question those at the very top. 

[Manximus Aururaneus]

I have to admit to being unable to identify either a 'Core management' group or 'Those at the very top' as I cannot see a long-term historical structure of either?

Unless somebody can provide me with some different pointers - all that I can see is a lack of strategic direction due to inconsistent short-term fire-fighting.

[Patient centred]

That’s why I would like to know who is on the interview panels. 
it’s got to be above medical director and CEO as these keep changing. 

[Manximus Aururaneus]

Composition of interview panels is usually a matter of public record and where it is not then an FOI would almost certainly have to be granted. In respect of senior medical appointments, there will be the additional attendance of the respective College representative.

Yet again, I can see no particular pattern of untoward individual or group control as there seems to be no long-term consistency of personnel - I'm thinking more cock-up than conspiracy to be frank.

[doc.fixit]

If, instead of procrastinating and trying to cover things up and hiding the truth the Govt. was as open as it could be about such events, I for one, would have so much more faith in our supposedly elected leaders. I recognise that no one can be right all the time.

Maybe use the energy and cash that is used to hide things to research what is wrong, listen to the public and those at the sharp end and make meaningful and lasting chamges to the system.

[Uhtred]

29 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

Composition of interview panels is usually a matter of public record and where it is not then an FOI would almost certainly have to be granted. In respect of senior medical appointments, there will be the additional attendance of the respective College representative.

Yet again, I can see no particular pattern of untoward individual or group control as there seems to be no long-term consistency of personnel - I'm thinking more cock-up than conspiracy to be frank.

What follows is complete guesswork on my part (but I’ve strived for logical guesswork).

Taking the Transformation Director as an example, whilst of a fixed-term nature, this is/was presumably still a civil service appointment. The government website makes it very clear that, in terms of officials, the health transformation agenda buck stops with the Chief Secretary, so it seems very likely that he was one member of the recruitment/interview panel. At such a senior level, it’s equally likely that Ashford also participated. These two being involved is perhaps backed up by the fact that they were the rent-a-quotes in the media release about Mr. Spicer’s appointment. All organisations these days have an HR/CIPD figure on interview panels so I’d say that would be person 3. And possibly a qualified medic...Medical Director? So I’d nominate that quartet, or very similar, as those who selected Mr. Spicer.

[Derek Flint]

I hope John Hasn’t gone. I had a coffee with him late October, and like Wrighty, quite liked the bloke. They were due to be moving ‘out’ of the Cabinet Office into their own space around now too. 

Doubtless someone will find out soon.