Fining hospitals
Discussion
Ridgemont said:
To the OP: what’s the alternative? Just shrugging and a mild ‘nevermind’? People died because of incompetence.
The hospital was not incompetent, a person or people were, they should be the ones being penalised, and if they have resigned or retired they should still be called to account.Rovinghawk said:
I think his point is the lack of personal accountability for those found to be incompetent.
Although not a comment on this particular case, imho it is rare for a person in a position of authority to be incompetent. They may, like everyone else, be competent and still make mistakes. Punishing for mistakes is incompatible with achieving project objectives.
This case does look like a f
k up though. Cleaning out air con plants is a well known requirement. DurianIceCream said:
Although not a comment on this particular case, imho it is rare for a person in a position of authority to be incompetent.
Any dead individuals might disagree but I'll happily play semantics with you. Maybe there should be personal accountability if they are negligent.Dixy said:
Ridgemont said:
To the OP: what’s the alternative? Just shrugging and a mild ‘nevermind’? People died because of incompetence.
The hospital was not incompetent, a person or people were, they should be the ones being penalised, and if they have resigned or retired they should still be called to account.Rovinghawk said:
Any dead individuals might disagree but I'll happily play semantics with you. Maybe there should be personal accountability if they are negligent.
Heard of vicarious liabilty? If following an organisational procedure then the individual would not be liable.If it is a system/procedure error then the organisation is the one at fault and should be dealt with accordingly. Luckily fines wont come directly from the individual trust bank account and will instead be paid by NHS Protect and the trust will ultimately pay through increased premiums
pavarotti1980 said:
Heard of vicarious liabilty? If following an organisational procedure then the individual would not be liable.
"I was only obeying orders" didn't work at Nuremberg & shouldn't work here. If a competent person should realise that a procedure is wrong then that person is negligent if they carry on regardless.pavarotti1980 said:
If it is a system/procedure error then the organisation is the one at fault and should be dealt with accordingly.
Then the person who instigates the procedure is incompetent or negligent and should be held accountable.I don't accept the public sector ethos that nobody is ever to blame for their failings.
Edited by Rovinghawk on Monday 23 April 17:49
Rovinghawk said:
Then the person who instigates the procedure is incompetent or negligent and should be held accountable.
I don't accept the public sector ethos that nobody is ever to blame for their failings.
Is it only in the public sector that nobody is ever to blame? Its boring you come up with the same sI don't accept the public sector ethos that nobody is ever to blame for their failings.
t every time.So you are comparing vicarious liability to Nurenburg? Go and give your head a shake. you are a complete weapon
pavarotti1980 said:
Is it only in the public sector that nobody is ever to blame?
No, but it's in the public sector where it seems to be predominantly the case.pavarotti1980 said:
So you are comparing vicarious liability to Nurenburg?
No, I'm comparing one unacceptable excuse with another and stating that neither is a good defence.pavarotti1980 said:
Go and give your head a shake. you are a complete weapon
You resort to ad homs when you have no ther means of debate? I won't sink to your level of insults.Rovinghawk said:
Then the person who instigates the procedure is incompetent or negligent and should be held accountable.
But the question is one of degree - how much negligence was there and what would be an appropriate restitution for that negligence?Being an employee and being grossly incompetent in such a way as to result in a death does not prevent you from being prosecuted for manslaughter.
The issue is one of whether a competent person in that job would be likely to have made the same mistake. People do make mistakes, no matter how competent they are. The more competent people make fewer mistakes, and are better able to detect and correct them. But no one is perfect.
So, is it negligent to work off the plans you are given without checking them personally? What if your boss tells you that the plans have been signed off by the builder? Or is it the boss that is negligent and should go to jail for believing what the builder told him?
Perhaps the plumbing contractor installing the showers couldn't route the pipes from the left as drawn because of an obstruction, so routed them to the right and connected them to a different supply pipe, without first getting authority to do so in triplicate from the supervisor? Maybe he should go to jail.
The difficulty in these complex cases where there are multiple contributing factors is that it is difficult to find any one single person who holds enough personal responsibility that serious punishment would be appropriate. At any rate, it is well established in health and safety practice that serious punishment for minor negligence is unhelpful at best, and pernicious at worst. After all, it didn't stop pilots crashing planes through minor acts of carelessness, when the individual pilots literally paid the ultimate price.
WatchfulEye said:
But the question is one of degree - how much negligence was there and what would be an appropriate restitution for that negligence?
I agree totally. However the procedure appears (as ever) to blame 'procedural errors' & 'systemic failures' and not even to bother ascertaining whether negligence was involved.
From the snippets I heard on tv wasn't this the second death attributed to legionella at the same hospital within a ten-fifteen year period?
Sampling of taps and showers is on a risk assessment basis based around the type of patient being cared for and cancer wards are higher risk immuno compromised, so regardless of what people "assumed" about the plumbing and source of hot water, the routine sampling would have picked this up. Someone dropped a major bk and not for the first time as it sounded to me.
Unforgivable, but fining the hospital should only be a part of it. At a corporate level a director of the trust has responsibility for this.
Sampling of taps and showers is on a risk assessment basis based around the type of patient being cared for and cancer wards are higher risk immuno compromised, so regardless of what people "assumed" about the plumbing and source of hot water, the routine sampling would have picked this up. Someone dropped a major b
k and not for the first time as it sounded to me. Unforgivable, but fining the hospital should only be a part of it. At a corporate level a director of the trust has responsibility for this.
WatchfulEye said:
The difficulty in these complex cases where there are multiple contributing factors is that it is difficult to find any one single person who holds enough personal responsibility that serious punishment would be appropriate. At any rate, it is well established in health and safety practice that serious punishment for minor negligence is unhelpful at best, and pernicious at worst. After all, it didn't stop pilots crashing planes through minor acts of carelessness, when the individual pilots literally paid the ultimate price.
Exactly this. It is almost never the fault of a single person when things go wrong. If an individual person can make a mistake and things go seriously wrong, then the fault does not lie with the person making the mistake, for all people make mistakes. The fault lies in the organisational procedure whereby a mistake can have serious consequences. If people want to start punishing employees for making mistakes then this will happen:
- you will make a mistake yourself, so you will be punished
- nobody will do anything because it would create extreme risk adversion
- mistakes will be hidden because of fear of punishment instead of brought out in the open for the benefit of everyone, to make improvement without assigning blame
Rovinghawk said:
pavarotti1980 said:
Heard of vicarious liabilty? If following an organisational procedure then the individual would not be liable.
"I was only obeying orders" didn't work at Nuremberg & shouldn't work here. If a competent person should realise that a procedure is wrong then that person is negligent if they carry on regardless.pavarotti1980 said:
If it is a system/procedure error then the organisation is the one at fault and should be dealt with accordingly.
Then the person who instigates the procedure is incompetent or negligent and should be held accountable.I don't accept the public sector ethos that nobody is ever to blame for their failings.
Using your own standards, can you describe mistakes you have made in your day to day work and what would have been an appropriate punishment, had the system not been broken so people don't get punished for mistakes?
DurianIceCream said:
Using your own standards, can you describe mistakes you have made in your day to day work and what would have been an appropriate punishment, had the system not been broken so people don't get punished for mistakes?
If I get it wrong I have a very high chance of being dismissed pretty much on the spot with all outstanding wages forfeited, even if it's a 'systemic problem' or 'procedural error'. I can't just say 'lessons will be learned' and get away with whatever it might be.There is also the risk of prosecution for many things I might do.
Rovinghawk said:
If I get it wrong I have a very high chance of being dismissed pretty much on the spot with all outstanding wages forfeited, even if it's a 'systemic problem' or 'procedural error'. I can't just say 'lessons will be learned' and get away with whatever it might be.
There is also the risk of prosecution for many things I might do.
Why would you work where your employer is acting illegally dismissing you? For the punishment you describe is only possible in the case of gross misconduct. Why are you working somewhere which would seek to apply gross misconduct penalties for cases where there is a simple mistake? What have other employees who have made a mistake, but not at gross misconduct levels, yet been terminated immediately without notice or pay in lieu of notice done? This they complain? Did they get a lawyer? Were they in a union? Did they just say 'oh well, employer is acting illegally, I was following a procedure, I just made a simple mistake, got fired anyway, my bad"There is also the risk of prosecution for many things I might do.
Or did you just make it all up?
DurianIceCream said:
Why would you work where your employer is acting illegally dismissing you? For the punishment you describe is only possible in the case of gross misconduct. Why are you working somewhere which would seek to apply gross misconduct penalties for cases where there is a simple mistake? What have other employees who have made a mistake, but not at gross misconduct levels, yet been terminated immediately without notice or pay in lieu of notice done? This they complain? Did they get a lawyer? Were they in a union? Did they just say 'oh well, employer is acting illegally, I was following a procedure, I just made a simple mistake, got fired anyway, my bad"
Or did you just make it all up?
I'm freelance & get very well paid. With the pay comes the responsibility.Or did you just make it all up?
Big boy games, big boy rules. Try it sometime.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff