eMJA: Three Australian whistleblowing sagas: lessons for internal and external regulation

Francis Lannigan,* Geoff Knight,†
Gary C Geelhoed,‡ Alan Duncan,† Peter Chauvel,† Ian Hewitt,†
Peter Le Souëf§

* Chairman, † Past Chairman, ‡ Past Chairman
(corresponding author), Clinical Staff Association, § Professor of Paediatrics, Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, PO Box D184, Perth, WA 6840. Gary.GeelhoedAThealth.wa.gov.au

To the Editor: We write in response to the article by Faunce and Bolsin on the lessons to be drawn from three Australian whistleblowing sagas.1 Their summary of events at King Edward Memorial Hospital, Perth, deserves comment.

Michael Moodie, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of King Edward Memorial Hospital, was also CEO of Princess Margaret Hospital for Children (PMH). He was stood down from PMH because of the concerns of workers in response to events at PMH unrelated to those at King Edward Memorial Hospital, as Faunce and Bolsin implied.

Moodie was the senior administrator charged by the government with ensuring that appropriate standards were in place and were being met. Staff at PMH believed he was unable to fulfil his brief, culminating in votes of no confidence from the PMH Clinical Staff Association, the PMH Medical Advisory Committee, and a petition signed by 80 PMH doctors.

Thomas A Faunce,*
Stephen N C Bolsin†

Senior Lecturer, Medical School, and Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Australian National University, Acton, ACT 0200; † Director of PeriOperative Care,
Geelong Hospital, Geelong, VIC.
Thomas.FaunceATanu.edu.au

In reply: Our reference to Michael Moodie as a “whistleblower” merely reiterates his description as such in the report of the Inquiry into Obstetrics and Gynaecological Services at King Edward Memorial Hospital by the Australian Council for Safety and Quality in Health Care.1

That report states: “Both the Bristol and King Edward case arose from ‘whistle-blowers’ reporting serious problems rather than from established safety and quality monitoring systems. In Bristol’s case, the whistle-blower was an anaesthetist and, in King Edward’s case, it was the recently appointed Chief Executive. In both cases, either directly or indirectly, the department of health received information about management and clinical performance problems that had not been addressed over a significant period of time.”

The report then lists nine examples of problems established at both institutions, ranging from a “closed culture and environment unsupportive of openly disclosing errors and adverse events” to “poor clinical and emotional outcomes for patients and families”. The report continues: “However, there were differences in the Hospitals’ response to the inquiries. Bristol welcomed an inquiry and actively supported the process. In contrast, King Edward tolerated the process and the Western Australian branch of the Australian Medical Association actively and publicly fought it.”