An Independent Review of John Watkinson's Dismissal by Royal
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
An independent review into the approach and behaviour of NHS South West in relation to the dismissal of John Watkinson by Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust A report for the Chief Executive of the NHS December 2010 Authors: Lucy Scott-Moncrieff Ed Marsden © Verita 2010 Verita is an independent consultancy which specialises in conducting and managing investigations reviews and inquiries for public sector and statutory organisations. Verita 53 Frith St London W1D 4SN Telephone 020 7494 5670 Fax 020 7734 9325 Email [email protected] Website www.verita.net 2 Contents Introduction 4 Terms of reference 7 Executive summary 8 Details of the review Approach, structure and those involved 19 Questions raised 26 Part 1 – facts and findings Brief chronology 30 Upper gastrointestinal cancer reconfiguration 42 RCHT performance 66 Bromley report and the Hawker review 96 Other matters investigated 133 Part 2 – analysis and conclusions Analysis and conclusions 151 Appendices Appendix A Secretary of State for Health‟s announcement 168 Appendix B List of interviewees 169 Appendix C Documents reviewed 170 Appendix D Review team biographies 174 3 Introduction 1.1 John Watkinson took up his post as chief executive of the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust (RCHT) on 1 January 2007. The trust has a long history of financial difficulties and in 2007 was ranked by the Healthcare Commission to be the worst performing NHS organisation in the south west. In late 2007 it was one of four NHS organisations required to account for its poor performance at a meeting with Sir David Nicholson, NHS chief executive. RCHT is not a foundation trust1. 1.2 Plans to transfer the surgical treatment of some upper gastrointestinal cancers (upper GI) from Treliske Hospital2 in Cornwall to Derriford Hospital in Devon were the subject of controversy and dispute in Cornwall throughout 2008. RCHT obtained counsel‟s opinion confirming the need for public consultation before any change was decided. John Watkinson led the discussion on this opinion at a meeting of the RCHT board on 5 August 2008. 1.3 Mr Watkinson was the chief executive of Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust (Bromley) before his appointment to RCHT. In late 2007 Bromley commissioned an independent review into its financial management and governance, covering the period when Mr Watkinson was chief executive and the year after he left. 1.4 The Bromley report was published on 25 September 2008 and raised serious concerns about the financial management and governance of the trust. The RCHT board asked Mr Watkinson to take special leave and RCHT and NHS South West (the SHA) announced an independent review to: “…consider whether the issues of competence and behaviour highlighted in the Bromley report have in any way occurred in the Royal Cornwall Hospitals Trust. 1 NHS foundation trusts are established as independent public benefit corporations and are free from central government control and from SHA performance management. Instead they are regulated by Monitor and operate by the terms of their authorisation. 2 RCHT is the main provider of acute services in Cornwall. It provides services to three sites including Royal Cornwall Hospital (Treliske Hospital, Truro), West Cornwall Hospital (Penzance) and St Michael‟s Hospital (Hayle) 4 The joint review will also clarify whether the Royal Cornwall Hospitals financial management and governance arrangements have been and remain appropriate.” 1.5 The RCHT board suspended John Watkinson on 2 October 2008. 1.6 RCHT and the SHA appointed a team of four independent experts, led by Professor Ruth Hawker, to undertake the review. The Hawker report was published on 20 March 2009 and criticised the trust‟s financial management, governance arrangements, its board and its chief executive. The RCHT board accepted its conclusions and recommendations at a meeting convened to consider the report. 1.7 The RCHT board dismissed John Watkinson on 16 April 2009, the day after a meeting between him and two non-executive directors. The reason given in his letter of dismissal was: “the board considers that your actions have led to a breakdown in trust and confidence and that there is no realistic alternative to termination of employment.” 1.8 John Watkinson‟s appeal against this decision was heard by a panel of independent non-executive directors who upheld the decision to dismiss. 1.9 Mr Watkinson took his case to the employment tribunal. On 5 May 2010 the tribunal found that he had been unfairly dismissed because he had made a “protected disclosure” covered by the Public Interest Disclosure Act. The disclosure was of counsel‟s opinion regarding consultation, made on 5 August 2008. The tribunal also found that RCHT acted as it did as a result of pressure from NHS South West. Mr Watkinson‟s witness statement sets out his reasons for believing this was the case, and the tribunal seems to have accepted his arguments. 1.10 On 17 June 2010 the Secretary of State for Health announced an independent review into the SHA‟s involvement in the decision to dismiss John Watkinson. Sir David Nicholson, NHS chief executive commissioned Verita to conduct it. 5 1.11 Verita is a consultancy specialising in the management and conduct of investigations, reviews and inquiries in public sector organisations. Lucy Scott-Moncrieff, Verita associate, and Ed Marsden, managing director of Verita, conducted the work. 1.12 Our terms of reference are set out in section two. Our review is concerned with the actions of NHS South West in relation to Mr Watkinson‟s dismissal. We have not reviewed the legality of John Watkinson‟s dismissal, which has already been adjudicated upon, nor have we reviewed the merits or otherwise of the reconfiguration of upper gastrointestinal (upper GI) cancer services in the south west peninsula. We have looked at the interaction between the SHA and RCHT only to the extent necessary to fulfil our terms of reference. 1.13 We identified a panel of experts with whom we discussed our evidence, findings and conclusions. They saw some of the documents as appropriate. The panel were: Kathryn Riddle, chair, NHS Yorkshire & Humber; Kate Gordon, chair, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital King‟s Lynn NHS Trust; and Sheena Cumiskey, chief executive, Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust. None has a close association with the individuals or organisations involved in this review. 6 2. Terms of reference 2.1 The Secretary of State for Health announced this review in a written ministerial statement to the House of Commons on 17 June 2010. 2.2 The terms of reference for this review are: To examine all the SHA‟s interactions with the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust in relation to the dismissal of John Watkinson and, by association, the trust‟s position in relation to the provision of the upper GI services in Cornwall. In particular, to determine: The chronology of events and decisions made in the running up to the dismissal of John Watkinson. What involvement NHS South West had in his dismissal and whether or not this was motivated by the reconfiguration of upper gastro-intestinal services or otherwise. Whether the SHA acted appropriately, proportionately, in keeping with its role and within its statutory responsibilities. The review should not duplicate the review of the proposals to reconfigure upper GI services in the southwest which was recently carried out by the Independent Reconfiguration Panel, nor any subsequent appeal of the employment tribunal‟s decision. However, it may consider these and any other relevant background evidence to make its determinations. 2.3 The ministerial statement appears at appendix A. 2.4 In conducting the review we did not and do not challenge the decision of the employment tribunal that Mr Watkinson was unfairly dismissed. 7 3. Executive summary Introduction 3.1 This report provides an independent review of NHS South West‟s (the SHA) involvement in the dismissal of John Watkinson from the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust (RCHT). It was commissioned by Sir David Nicholson, NHS chief executive, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Health who announced the review in a written ministerial statement to the House of Commons on 17 June 2010. 3.2 An employment tribunal decided in May 2010 that John Watkinson was unfairly dismissed because he had made a “protected disclosure” covered by the Public Interest Disclosure Act. The disclosure was of counsel‟s opinion regarding consultation on the reconfiguration of services made on 5 August 2008. The tribunal also found that RCHT acted as it did as a result of pressure from the SHA. 3.3 The terms of reference for the review are set out in section two of our full report. They required us to concentrate solely on the actions of NHS South West. We have not therefore inquired into the legality of John Watkinson‟s dismissal, which has already been adjudicated on, neither have we reviewed the merits or otherwise of the reconfiguration of upper gastrointestinal (upper GI) cancer services in the south west peninsula. Our approach 3.4 This review started in July 2010 and was conducted in private. Our draft report was submitted to the Department of Health at the end of September. 3.5 We were provided with copies of the witness statements and associated papers available to the employment tribunal and we asked for and received a great deal of other documentation relating to the SHA, the trust, upper GI cancer services, inspection visits, and independent review reports. We conducted 38 formal interviews (including some by telephone) either in the Verita offices, the House of Commons or in Truro, Cornwall. 8 3.6 The interviews were recorded and those interviewed were advised that they might be quoted in the report.