Zen10

Thankfully the public are now starting to use their brains and think this through. Even the Daily Mail is engaging its brain, and considering it only made such a fuss about it was because it owns the radio station's main rival in Australia that is pretty amazing.

"Does Kate’s hospital care more about PR than its own nurses?" -

"With what now seems to have been fatal complacency, it appears not to have occurred to anyone that it should upgrade its usual night-time telephone protocol, whereby calls to the switchboard are automatically diverted to a senior nurse on duty. Nor, it seems, did it adequately consider just how devastated that nurse would feel when she realised the result of her action."


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar....html#comments

dunmovin

It still come down to the fact, that if this pair had not made the call and let's face facts, this would not have happened. Blaming others after the event is futile. The deed was done. They done it. They caused everything afterwards.... simple....or maybe not so simple. The repercussions willl affect many people. Some might lose their job, some will have any chance of advance forever removed.

All because a pair of idiots thought it would make good ratings and boost their income. Did they take a moment to think about the "fallout" from their prank?? don't think they did...fame and money was all they saw.

You can't shift blame to others, after the event, when a pair like this, who have the morals of a saltwater croc, to peoplewho were not there.

Zen10

Sorry but that is ridiculous logic. If I yawn this morning and it delays me leaving the house by 15 seconds, and so my neighbour sees me leaving the street when he otherwise would not, and because he's driving his car and distracted by me walking down the road he knocks a motorbike over, it's not my fault, is it?

You would say it was my fault for yawning, but I would say he should have been looking where he was going, and that hospital should have 1)not had her answering calls in the first place, and 2) looked after her better afterwards.

dunmovin

WHO MADE THE CALL? WHO STARTED THE CHAIN OF EVENTS>>>AND WHY DID THEY DO IT?

Domino

whatever way you wish to look at it, the hospital owe a duty of care to their patients and their staff

in this particular matter they definitely fell down on the first - especially given the high profile nature of the patient.
they should have had procedures in place, supported by the security staff of the person concerned, but that is probably a moot point now as the hospital will probably lose its royal connection and the security team will be reassessed and reassigned as its not the first breach they have watched over.

as to the second, the member of staff concerned was in hospital nurses accommodation so effectively still on hospital premises.
it is claimed that there was no disciplinary action taken against the two nurses involved - but a "not telling off" session in a private room could be taken as such.

other than that we are all at a distance from it, cannot be sure even from the Trial by Media we are being blasted with (must be a slow day in media terms at the moment) as to the full truth in all of this.
But do we really want to know

`

bobd22

I agree with Dunmoving this prank irrespective of the this tragic out come was always going to put someones job at risk if it was a success and that with slightest though could have been predicted. So they were only interested in what they could get out of it. Of course this outcome could not be predicted. To try and put some blame with the Royals is also ridiculous of course they would be fuming at this breach of their privacy and security but that does not make them responsible in any way for this tragedy. The hospital have many questions to answer as do the Royal security team it is both have these parties that should have ensured the right person from a security point of view was taking such calls. However no can take away the fact if this prank had not taken place or even if the radio station had reviewed it correctly and stopped the broadcast the woman would be alive and working.

Richie1892

The whole chain of events have been tragic and all those involved will have to live with the outcome for the rest of their lives.
I have listened to and enjoyed radio pranks in the past on my local radio station, however before any were broadcast the permission of the "victim" was required prior to broadcasting, why wasn't that the case here? because they knew they wouldn't get it! ratings over someones feelings and probably ratings/publicity over the radio stations own protocols.
I find it very hard to have any sympathy towards anyone involved at the radio station even though no one could have foreseen the consequences, but I fail to see how any prank involving someone who has been hospitalised can in any way, shape or form be funny.
Ref hospital procedures, would there have been a different outcome had there been a night time switchboard, who knows, the same thing may have happened. My father was recently in intensive care for a few weeks in Newcastle where they do have a full time switchboard(one for all the hospitals), I'd call and all I had to do was say the ward and hospital, I would immediately be put through to the ward, they would ask me who I was then either talk to me themselves or fetch a nurse who had been looking after my father. The main problem they have is that they can't see you, they have to take who you say you are at face value, what if they don't believe you and they are wrong, imagine the furore then? I don't envy them, either way the blame is always going to be on them. How else can they do it though? maybe each patients family has to be given a "PIN number" that they have to give the hospital before being put through to the ward or before the nurse reveals any info.
As I said a tragedy and my heart goes out to Jacintha's family.

Rambling Rose

Sorry I should have picked up on this a few days ago. In fact there are a lot of jobs where discussing information outside of work, even with a spouse could lead to disciplinary action or dismissal. Anyone who works where they have access to personnel or medical records, financially sensitive information or information that would be valuable to competitors knows this. These jobs usually require you to sign something as part of your employment contract. I had done this and so knew I had been out of line.
However the Drs were pretty reasonable once they heard my apology and explanation. No damage was done as the girls mother had already told half the village anyway and I went on to keep the job for several years. Could have been a lot different though.

Pocaloca

It makes me laugh how some of you people are always going on about "political correctness gone mad". In a politically correct world there would be no prank calls on royal families. Is that what you really want?

Domino

the discussion between partners may fall under the Data Protection Act, but I am not so sure it has been tested in a court of law. The larger problem is that certain medical records are kept for 40 years and that gives one hell of a chance for someone to see something, but also in the past 20-30 years how many times has the NHS changed its record keeping systems ! !
I am not so sure the information is security locked in a similar manner to that of a police officer carrying out a PNC check - but those with the desire, the will and a little bit of knowhow have been able to break that as well.
But the DPA is an Act of Parliament and all who come into contact with such information are not required to sign their acceptance - they have to obey the law, even when they don't know about it. (Ignorance of the law is no defence). But the onus is on the Data Holder to ensure the information that is stored is timely, correct, necessary and safely stored.

financial or sales sensitive information could lead to a potential signing of a non-disclosure agreement, but then every year Directors who should know better are barred from holding directorships for divulging such sensitive information or misusing it for their own ends. Additionally, salesmen have been successfully prosecuted for divulging information.

the only document I have ever signed that is fully enforceable in law is the Official Secrets Act, but then you would hope that would be the case.

considering how hard it was to get information on my dying father over the telephone I am surprised that anyone got a single word out of nurses.

.

jackytoo

Well yes, when I registered at a Doctors in the UK there was one form giving permission for them to leave messages on the ansaphone and another to discuss any illness with my Husband. It beggars belief that a private hospital used by royalty and probably many more VIP's didn't have some procedures in place. Logically would a member of the royal family ring the ward....they would have a direct line to the consultant dealing with the patient.

Richie1892

Domino, I found it very easy to get information about my father whilst for you it was more difficult and that is probably a large part of the problem, the lack of a standard procedure for different geographical areas of the health service and private hospitals

whitelinen

Who on earth would ring at 05.30 am????

The Queen is not even a blood relative or next of kin.

It was reported today that the dead woman sent several e-mails in the days leading up to her death and also left 3 suicide notes.

All this angst and blame could be for nothing as she might have had other reasons to end it all.

bobd22

I can't see where you are coming from I'm afraid.

bobd22

All this angst and blame could be for nothing as she might have had other reasons to end it all.[/QUOTE]

This may turn out to be the case but if this woman was suffering any form of issues this will certainly of helped her mental health will it. It may be that this incident was the straw that broke the camels back, but for me doesn't alter one jot what I have said.