Putting the matter straight
BMJ 2010; 340 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c146 (Published 13 January 2010) Cite this as: BMJ 2010;340:c146
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Dear Editor,
The clarification from Dr. Collins [1] should be read in conjunction
with the NHS London report.[2]
Paragraph 4.2 of the report includes the following:
"Four Consultant Community Paediatricians were recruited to the
Service by GOSH [Great Ormond Street Hospital NHS Trust], including Dr KH,
who joined in 2004. At all material times, Children’s Services were
managed by JE, (then employed by HTPCT) and on the clinical side led by Dr
DE(DE), an employee of GOSH."
Paragraph 5.3 states:
"The Consultants’ concerns were over potential risks to patients and
so related to patient safety. Insofar as Dr DE considers that issues of
increased waiting times through excessive workload, lack of follow-up
appointments and the unavailability of notes did not affect patient
safety, that is a conclusion with which we would not agree."
In paragraph 11.9, the authors state:
"Insofar as the Consultants felt that there were difficulties with
management or that management were behaving in an inappropriate manner, it
would be to Dr DE that they should no doubt have looked for a resolution."
It would appear from the report that before GOSH assumed full
responsibility for the service, it had responsibility to address the
concerns relating to patient safety which were made. [3] This is because
of its status both as the employer of the doctors, and as the trust which
provided clinical leadership.
Yours faithfully,
Peter Gooderham
[1] Collins, J. (2010). Putting the matter straight. BMJ 340: c146-
c146 http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/jan13_3/c146 Accessed 16
January 2010
[2] D. Widdowson & N. Persaud, 'Report on an investigation into
allegations made by Dr Kim Holt,Consultant Community Paediatrician. NHS
London, 2009.
http://www.london.nhs.uk/webfiles/Independent%20inquiries/KHOLT_021209.pdf
Accessed 16 January 2010.
[3] A. Gilligan, Doctors raised alarm over ‘high risk’ at Baby P
clinic, Evening Standard 12th May 2009
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23689559-doctors-raised-
alarm-over-high-risk-at-baby-p-clinic.do Accessed 16 January 2010
Competing interests:
I have an academic interest in the prevention of medical error. I have discussed aspects of the NHS London report with Dr. Holt.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Another competing interest?
I have seen Dr Gooderham's name mentioned in the past as being a
member of
Professionals Against Child Abuse (PACA).
http://paca.org.uk/2008/10/23/presentation-on-the-role-of-the-gmc-to-
the-birmingham-medico-legal-society/
There's a more recent listing of his name in a Lancet letter as being
part of
PACA.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-
6736(09)61025-
4/fulltext
PACA has publicly supported Dr Kim Holt so I wonder if Dr Gooderham
should
have declared this?
Competing interests:
I have a significant journalistic
interest in the organisation PACA
which I refer to in my response.
Competing interests: No competing interests