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.
Not many doctors are successful at employment tribunals('ET'),so Mr Niekrash should be pleased with the outcome.In the ET's judgment, at para.121-123,there's a useful summary of the Department of Health's framework document (2005) entitled Maintaining High Professional
Standards in the Modern NHS('MHPS') which all NHS Trusts are obliged to follow in relation to conduct and capability issues involving doctors & dentists.
Interstingly, at para.199,ET found that "The exclusion was therefore on the ground of the protected disclosures. When deciding upon the categorisation of the reason for exclusion, the Respondent lifted the phrase 'breakdown in relationships' from the MHPS procedure"[emphasis mine]. Among other things,ET also found at para.204, "It appears to us that the letters were clearly defamatory in the sense that they made derogatory comments about the Claimant".It is most unforunate that Mr Niekrash had to endure so much personal trauma in relation 'protected disclosures' he made.
Doctor who was excluded for raising patient safety concerns is entitled to substantial damages
BMJ 2010; 340: c739