Doctor exposes understaffing at Baby P hospital

Baby Peter could have been saved if managers at a London hospital where he was treated had listened to fears raised by senior doctors more than a year before the toddler’s death, a consultant paediatrician said today.

Dr Kim Holt, who worked at St Ann’s Hospital in Haringey, north London, said she and three colleagues wrote an open letter detailing problems at the clinic in 2006.

They claimed that the service, run by Haringey with doctors employed by Great Ormond Street, was understaffed and had a “chaotic” appointment system which was a risk to patients.

Dr Holt said: “There was a very chaotic system of making appointments, there were difficulties with notes always being available. We had problems with our secretarial support, in that we didn’t have enough.

“As consultant you carry the responsibility for children in your care, we weren’t really involved in any way in decision making in how the services were developed. That was making us increasingly concerned about risk to patients.”

She claims that staff felt “overstretched” and were prompted to write the letter when £400,000 (€440,789) of proposed cuts were unveiled.

The expert, who has 25 years’ experience in medicine, said Baby Peter’s death could have been prevented if the concerns were addressed.

She said: “We did not feel that the letter was acted on in any meaningful way. In the mean time a tragedy happened which we felt was foreseeable.

“I saw it (the Baby Peter coverage) and I just thought: ’I knew that would happen’. I knew that somehow our service would be involved, I felt that the service was falling to pieces and that something would happen.

“It was very sad because we were desperately trying to say something. Possibly he could have been protected.

“I think he wasn’t seen early enough. From what I’ve read it took four months to get an appointment, that delay is unacceptable.

“We failed him. I think he could have been protected. We were failing other children who did not die.”

Baby Peter died from a catalogue of more than 50 injuries inflicted by his mother, her boyfriend and his brother in August 2007.

He was seen by a locum doctor at St Ann’s before he died, but the medic astonishingly failed to notice that the child had a broken back. Two days later he was dead.

NHS London is set to publish a report on complaints made by Dr Holt against Great Ormond Street on Tuesday.

In February 2007 she was advised to take a month off by her GP and has not returned to her job since.

Dr Holt, 50, added: “Politically it is quite potent because this is about lack of resources and child protection. Ed Balls looks as if he’s done it all in terms of sacking Sharon Shoesmith but he hasn’t. This part has not come out.”

Chairman of Professionals Against Child Abuse (PACA) John Bridson said that many of the concerns raised by the four consultants were echoed by a Care Quality Commission probe in the wake of baby Peter’s death.

He said: “It appears that Dr Holt is yet another NHS whistleblower who has been badly treated by the NHS after raising legitimate concerns. This is unacceptable.”

PACA wants the Government to make a statement on legal protection afforded to health workers who open the lid on concerns about their employers.

Mr Bridson went on: “Dr Holt should be thanked by her employer, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust, which should also offer her a public apology. It should reinstate her and supply the necessary resources to allow her to do her job. It should also compensate her for the unnecessary costs she has incurred.”

Dr Holt’s MP, Lynne Featherstone, accused Great Ormond Street of being “deeply mired in denial”.

She said: “I know her to be a skilled and conscientious doctor who has been victimised for raising wholly justified concerns.

“While those in Haringey council who failed Baby Peter have rightly paid with their jobs, Great Ormond Street’s role remains the untold scandal of the Baby Peter story. Its continuing mistreatment of Dr Holt only goes to prove that. The hospital’s latest statements only show how deeply mired in denial they have become.”

A statement from the hospital said that the NHS London report would largely support their version of events.

It said: “We understand that this independent report, after a thorough investigation, finds that there was no bullying, and no specific targeting or victimisation of staff, around raising concerns, or any other matter.

“The report finds that substantial efforts were made by the PCT and Great Ormond Street Hospital to resolve the issues raised. It does make some measured criticisms around some aspects of process which we will act on and learn from. Broadly the Trust feels this report supports its view of events. The issue of workload of course is largely a matter of funding, over which we have little control.”