Welcome to our second e-mail newsletter.

For second-time readers, welcome back and thanks for your valuable support.

For newcomers, because you are reading this, it is likely that you’ve been affected by suspension/exclusion either directly or indirectly. Welcome to the “club”. Please know that you are not alone, that there is support and understanding, and that people are actively trying to generate positive, meaningful and sustained change.

Contents:

CAUSE (UK) e-mail NewsletterVolume 1 Issue 2 February 2006Page 1 of 10

Achievements ~ page 2

Campaign communications ~ pages 2-3

Action plan ~ page 3-4

External links ~ page 4

Feedback ~ pages 4-5

Frequently asked questions (FAQ’s) ~ pages 6-7

Practical resources ~ page 7-8

Self-care and Inspirations ~ page 8-9

Statistics, Data and Research ~ page 9

Stories ~ page 9

Membership ~ page 9

Governance (how a group is run) ~ pages 9-10

And the final word… ~ page 10

In this issue, three new ‘symbols’ are being tested:

HAVE YOUR SAY: Let us know your views/ideas. This e-newsletter is for you, and so we need your contributions to develop it and make it appropriate to need, rather than base it on what we think best. The choice and ‘power’ is yours.

SPEAK OUT: Let us know of any activities you have been involved in, either for the campaign or for your case, which you are happy to be shared with others and within the e-newsletter (we will maintain your anonymity if you request).

SHARE: If you have any ideas, tips, advice or practical information that you find/have found helpful, we would love to share it with others, so get e-mailing.

We again hope the information is supportive, reassuring, practical, empowering, and inspirational to you and those around you.

If you would like to receive this e-mail newsletter on a regular basis, and have not done so already, just follow the instructions in the 1st issue (pages 9-10), available on Julie’s website ( or email us ().

If this is your 1st newsletter, we hope you will (if you are able and ready to) get in touch and join us who are trying to “CAUSE a scene” [non-violently], by campaigning to:

stop current injustices and travesties,

end NHS rhetoric,

get the Department of Health and NHS to listen to us (possibly ex-) employees who really do have clout, and

make significant changes to current practice and attitudes.

We understand however, if you want to forget these awful events in your life and decline to subscribe (free) to ‘CAUSE a scene’ and/or to have contact with CAUSE (UK).

What ever you do, always remember your fundamental moral and legal human rights.

Enjoy, and be kind to yourself.

from Craig at

for the CAUSE (UK) campaign team

NB: March’s issue (Issue 3) will be released on Monday 27th March 2006. Please can contributions be sent in by no later than Monday 20th March 2006. Thanks.

Achievements

SPEAK OUT

  • A Scottish network has been set up, so those in Scotland have specific support and practical help. See under ‘Governance (How a group is run)’. Well done and thanks to those who agreed to form the network. The more networks we can build, the louder our voice will get. And the more locally tailored and relevant the support/advice can be.
  • The 14th Feb 2006 meeting with Andrew Barton (Head of RCN reps training) was enlightening. As a result, the following action plan has been agreed:
  1. Design a model suspension/exclusion policy, case management algorithm and one day interactive training programme
  2. Pilot the training day in London then, once evaluated, roll out nationally
  3. During the training day, the reps will be asked to take the model policy back to their trusts to influence change

Julie and Craig are currently busy designing the policy, algorithm and programme.

  • We hope we have secured a source to review our legal arguments. We will keep you posted on this.
  • We have finally established that there is no centrally collected data regarding the suspension/exclusion of non-medical staff (see ‘Campaign communications’).

Campaign communications

SPEAK OUT

Press releases

Three press releases have been sent out:

  • On 26.01.2006 and 07.02.2006, following which we got two mentions in the nursing press:

Nursing Times (NT) – 14 February 2006, Vol 102 No 7 (p4)

Nursing Standard (NS) – February 15, vol 20 no 23, 2005 (p12)

  • On 20.02.2006, following the meeting with Andrew Barton. We believe the nursing press (NT and NS) will make mention w/c 27.02.2006, so keep an eye out (not literally).

Existing/ongoing dialogue

  • No new responses have been received in relation to the e-letter sent to Sir Nigel Crisp in October 2005 (circulated to over 30 NHS and non-NHS agencies). We assume we are not going to get a response now from the remaining 20+ organisations.
  • ACAS: Dialogue has now ceased. ACAS was urged to provide specific written guidance and training regarding suspension/exclusion, and to ensure that it’s staff involved in any alternative dispute resolution (ADR) cases are fully aware of current statutory and voluntary best practice.
  • Department of Health (DH):
  1. Maureen Morgan – No further exchanges received, despite many questions remaining unanswered.
  2. Workforce Directorate – Out of the blue, a letter dated 16.01.2006 was received from the Director, which we gather was in reply to a letter sent to Sir Nigel Crisp expressing out discontentment with the responses from NHS Employers. The letter has been published on Julie’s website. A further reply sent to the Director was responded to by the Chief Nursing Officer.
  3. Chief Nursing Officer – A letter was sent to Ms Beasley on the 23.01.2006, requesting she take formal action. Her response of 31.01.2006, making numerous dismissals and denials and rejecting information presented to her, is on Julie’s website. We responded with detailed objective questions and suggestions to question her response. Regrettably, the CNO gave a final response on 20.02.2006, discontinuing dialogue and discouraging us from contacting any other (quote) senior officials. A final response was sent to the CNO on 21.02.2006, summarising the 22 questions and 4 suggestions she did not respond to, clarifying facts as they stand, and challenging the rhetoric the DH has frequently given about openness, dialogue, questioning, raising concerns….etc.
  • NHS Employers: Dialogue has been discontinued, as it was fruitless.
  • Offices of the Strategic Health Authorities (OHSA): After a further prompt, a very brief response was received. The reply stated they acknowledge and take seriously: Intervening in unacceptable practice, reminding NHS establishments of best practice and mandatory requirements, and holding responsible persons to account. Regrettably, after asking for objective evidence to substantiate these claims, dialogue was discontinued.

New e-mail letters

  • To the CNO: A contact (who cannot be identified due to a gagging clause) e-mailed the Chief Nursing Officer (CNO), in response to her denials and dismissals. In their email, the contact identified their significant negative experiences in the NHS, that there is not a climate of openness and that there is a fear of victimisation. The CNO was reminded not to be complacent about how staff are treated, which has [rightly so] left the individual bitter and no longer working in the NHS [a great loss]. A big THANK YOU to the contact for taking this action.
  • Another campaigner has been in contact with BBC Breakfast, the DH recruitment line, David Cameron’s office, and the Healthcare Commission. Fabulous and well done!
  • The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and National Audit Office (NAO) have been kept informed of the responses received.
  • To NCAS: A Freedom of Information request was made. As predicted, the information requested regarding suspension/exclusion of non-medical staff is not available, as it is not being collected. Thus ~ there is no national data available.

Action plan

  1. ASAP: Julie is going to distribute a sample letter for those wishing to contact officials.
  2. ASAP: The following are going to be contacted to urge for a response:
  • NHS Confederation
  • Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority (SHA)
  • Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC)
  • Royal College of Nursing (RCN)
  1. ASAP: Julie and Craig are going to produce a downloadable poster and leaflet, which we hope people will circulate. The aim is to raise awareness of the issues regarding suspension/exclusion, along with peoples’ rights and responsibilities, and also raise awareness of the campaign/CAUSE (UK).
  2. Ongoing: A source is going to make Freedom of Information requests to every NHS trust, and then report on the findings…watch this exciting space!
  3. 10.03.2006: Meeting with Professor Aidan Halligan (Director of NHS Clinical Governance):

WHERE: Leicester

AIMS: Whilst the meeting has not been arranged to specifically discuss suspension/exclusion, the issue and how Clinical Governance could remedy many of the existing problems will be brought up.

HAVE YOUR SAY: Please let us know your thoughts and suggestions to take to this meeting – asap.

  1. March/April/Spring 2006: New voluntary suspension/exclusion guidelines from the CNO/DH are expected. Watch this space folks, but don’t get too excited now! Once the guidelines have been published and we have scrutinised them, we will issue a press release and try to gather more support, in conjunction with the nursing press. [PS – Bets are on as to when the guidelines will actually be published, as there appears to be moving goal posts!]
  2. Campaign Activities: We are looking for people who feel able to put pen to paper (in today’s world, finger to keyboard). If you feel able to speak out, please let us know. The more people who speak out, especially in a co-ordinated and structured way, the more our ‘voice’ will get heard. If you need to retain anonymity, you can still have a voice. There are many ways of ‘speaking out’, both verbal and behavioural. It is important, however, to reinforce to those still working for a problem organisation that they should not wilfully breach confidentiality. Remember that the NHS has a ‘chain of command’ to raise concerns/grievances, which should be followed to avoid being lawfully dismissed.
  3. Informal support: If anyone feels able to provide an informal supportive role to individuals suspended/excluded, please let us know.

External links

SHARE

Feedback

HAVE YOUR SAY: Feedback is always welcome, and is vital to ensure we meet your needs and are running things effectively and efficiently. Please see the 1st issue (pages 9-10), available on the website or on e-mail request from us, for guidance on feedback and submitting items to a future newsletter.

Thank you to those who have taken the time to feed back to us.

Thank you for the encouraging and constructive feedback regarding Julie’s website, the campaign, and this pilot e-newsletter. We are most encouraged to know that we are making a difference to those who are caught up in the travesties and nightmare. It is a blessing to know that we are not annoying or offending what at times seem like everyone!

Practical

Thanks to ‘K’ in Scotland for the valuable advice regarding the differences in laws, systems and organisations, namely that:

  • NHS Scotland is covered by the Health Department of the Scottish Executive,
  • Westminster MP’s have no authority over NHS Scotland,
  • Scotland has its own Chief Nurse, and
  • NPSA and NICE have no jurisdiction.

ACTION: 1) Those in Scotland will need to contact the relevant bodies/organisations.

2) A Scottish network of the campaign has been generated (see ‘Governance’)

Newsletter

27.01.2006 – “Congrats to you and Julie for the press release and 1st newsletter…I admire you and Julie for your efforts and energy levels, hope you can keep it up…It would be good to have a database of professionals/helpers to contact with specialist knowledge etc.”

HAVE YOUR SAY

30.01.2006 – “Congratulations on the wonderful newsletter…keep up the good work.”

13.02.2006 – “I’m really glad you are doing this. Personally I think 3 monthly would be frequent enough unless there is something important coming up that we need to know about and then a press release could be sent.”

HAVE YOUR SAY

Campaign/Support

Of Julie, a relative wrote in: “I admire the time, effort and honest passion that you are putting in to help fight this ‘ritual abuse’, but above all I admire very much the simple fact that you are reacting at all.”

COMMENT: Thank-you to the relative (‘I’) who made these very special comments, which sum up Julie so well and describe just how much we owe her, for helping us through and making a real difference, despite her own circumstances.

06.01.2006 – “Many thanks for those useful things you have drawn my attention to and for taking the time to help me in this mess!”

26.01.2006 – “Thanks for the advice.”

28.01.2006 – “Received your e-mail this evening. A very big thank-you from the bottom of my heart!… You and Julie have been fantastic. Although I have never met either of you, receiving e-mails from you both has offered me strength and support. It can be a very lonely road indeed when suspension knocks on your door.”

30.01.2006 – “You are a smashing pair. I have never met you both but feel I now have two extra pals!”

14.02.2006 – “Your support/advice/reading material has been invaluable to us both, we appreciate very much. Very big thanks from me.”

15.02.2006 – “…a huge thank-you to you both for all the support given, not only to me but to all those members of staff out there who are suffering.”

23.02.2006 – “Thank you so much for your long and generous phone call…it was fantastic to have someone to talk with…”

Complaints and concerns

Regrettably we have had two (2) informal concerns raised, both involving the unintentional breach of confidentiality when sending out group e-mails. On both occasions, the ‘To’ field was mistakenly used instead of the ‘Bcc’ field, resulting in the sharing of e-mail addresses without consent. The concerns raised were valid and gratefully received.

ACTION TAKEN:

1)A full and unreserved apology was immediately given to all parties concerned.

2)All recipients of the original e-mails were immediately re-contacted and provided with five directions to delete the e-mail addresses and prevent further use of them without consent.

LEARNING:

1)Send group e-mails using the ‘Bcc’ field only.

2)When replying to an e-mail,

a)Either use just the ‘reply’ function (ie to reply to the sender of the e-mail only), or

b)Copy the text of the received e-mail into a new e-mail, and insert the sender’s address in the ‘To’ field.

c)Avoid using the ‘reply to all’ function.

Both Julie and myself were horrified when we learned of the unintentional errors, and again provide our apologies, hoping that no damage has been done to either the individuals involved, or to the trust that people have in us.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ’s)

SHARE

This month: Returning to Work (RTW)

[Either in the same, similar or a totally different environment/location/organisation]

Isn’t it ironic that majority of ‘officials’ think RTW following suspension/exclusion is simply a case of starting work the next day, as if nothing happened and everything is ok?

Suspension/exclusion, with possible dismissal, is like an emotional roller coaster and psychological earthquake or volcano, with many ‘regions’ of our lives devastated by the unseen, unappreciated consequences and effects.

Before and after RTW, an enormous amount of rebuilding ‘work’ is necessary if RTW is going to be appropriate, safe and successful for both you and any organisation. This rebuilding will need to be done by you and your employer (if you still work for them).

For those unfairly dismissed, the following principles discussed still apply.

Firstly, you need to understand and secure ‘Normalisation’ and ‘Revalidation’.

Normalisation is about helping an individual make sense of their emotions and accept that what they think/feel and how they react to situations is essentially normal for the given situation. Emotions and thoughts can include anger, resentment/bitterness, betrayal, grief, loss/bereavement, injustice, mistrust/suspicion. As part of normalisation, it is important to understand that in future situations, one’s tolerance/threshold for conflict and negative behaviour/conduct is likely to be lower. This is often perceived as being brittle, or a ‘serial’ (complainer, whiner, troublemaker, etc), when in fact one is trying to avoid a repeat of what usually resulted in suspension.

Revalidation helps an individual ~ as a person, team member, employee and professional ~ recover their sense of self (identity, worth, ability, strengths), self-esteem and confidence, direction and control. It is about rebuilding trust in oneself and others.

Secondly, managed re-integration is essential.

Re-integration is about returning the person to work either in a same, similar or totally different environment/location/organisation. Depending on the length of time suspended/excluded, this will need to be phased and gradual. It can be a very complex process, as there are MANY things to consider ~ the list is very long!

Thirdly, an employee should remember that, if the working environment was the underlying issue (root cause) resulting in the suspension, they should not return to the working environment if it has not changed. An important legal employment term to remember regarding this is ‘Volenti non fit injuria’

‘Volenti non fit injuria’ legally means that if an individual voluntarily returns to the working environment, knowing the risks, s/he arguably has agreed to a system of work that may cause injury (taken from: ‘An employers guide to stress at work litigation’ (Smith, J) in Stress News July 1998, Vol 10 No 3).

Work-related stress ~ IMPORTANT NOTE: If you are currently suspended/excluded, are suffering stress, and get signed off sick (‘certified’) by your GP/Occupational Health Service, PLEASE get them to record ‘Work-Related Stress’ as the primary reason. This makes it clear that you are not at fault, and holds the employer/organisation to account. In some circumstances, it can also generate attention from within (Eg H&S reps) and from outside (Eg the Health and Safety Executive or the Healthcare Commission). At tribunal, sick certificates and their content can be vital evidence. This term also has wider implications for researchers and various organisations looking into workplace issues.