Three Australian whistleblowing sagas: lessons for internal and external regulation

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.”