No attempt to ‘deflect’ attention from infection issues at hospital, probe hears

A whistleblower who raised concerns about infection risks at a flagship hospital was not criticised in order to “deflect” attention from real issues, a former director at NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has told a public inquiry.

Dr Linda de Caestecker, who was director of public health at the health board until her retirement in March 2022, was asked at the Scottish Hospitals Inquiry on Tuesday about the handling of a number of whistleblowing complaints brought by members of staff regarding patient safety at the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital (QEUH) campus in Glasgow.

She was asked why her own investigation into one of the complaints, which was completed in May 2018, found fault with Dr Christine Peters, who was one of the microbiologists who blew the whistle about issues including the ventilation and water systems at the new hospital.

Dr de Caestecker’s report of her investigation, which was shown to the inquiry, contained a “long list” of criticisms of Dr Peters’s behaviour, including that “she does not accept being part of a team” and “she sends frequent requests for updates which are not directly relevant to her role”.

The report concluded “concerns about ventilation and patient safety were real” and were being dealt with, before going on to say Dr Peters had to “accept that she has no role in the day-to-day management”, and “she should be asked to cease sending multiple emails”.

Counsel to the inquiry Fred Mackintosh KC put it Dr de Caestecker that the criticisms formed a “significant part” of the report despite not being “relevant” to the concerns the whistleblowers had raised.

She insisted they were relevant as during her investigation the criticisms had come out “very strongly” from people she interviewed.

Dr de Caestecker continued: “People were very distressed and emotional at the interviews when they talked about it, and were finding it very difficult, so I felt I had to report it in order that we could put some help and support in place.”

When asked whether any “significant issue” raised up to that point by Dr Peters about infection risk at the new hospital had subsequently been found to be inaccurate, she said she was not aware of any.

Dr de Caestecker denied this, saying: “I don’t think that, because although we’ve talked about this and how difficult it was for members of the team, it hasn’t stopped the actions being taken.

She continued: “It hasn’t stopped… concerns being taken seriously. It hasn’t stopped a lot of activity and actions to try and resolve them. So I don’t think people have said these are not important issues just because Dr Peters raised them.”

Dr de Caestecker was also asked about the findings of an investigation done in 2015, just months after the new hospital opened, into why infection control doctors (ICDs) at the hospital were resigning from their posts.

Mr Mackintosh asked Dr de Caestecker if she thought the word “political” referred to the need to protect the hospital’s reputation.

She replied: “Yes, I think reputational damage in this circumstance is important because your hospitals have to be safe, patients have to be safe, but also people who are having to go into hospital need to feel they’re going into a safe environment where they’ll be well cared for.”

Mr Mackintosh queried this, asking whether there was a need to be “up front with the problems you’re facing and demonstrate you’re addressing them rather than keeping them quiet”.

She agreed, adding: “By saying one needs to think about reputation of a hospital and of people that work in it, I was not meaning therefore you don’t tell the truth, or you say something is safe when it’s not.

“Of course, that would be entirely wrong to do to that.”

The inquiry is currently investigating the construction of the QEUH campus, which includes the Royal Hospital for Children.

It was launched in the wake of deaths linked to infections, including that of 10-year-old Milly Main.

The inquiry continues.