Response to story about Barts

I have had unprecedented traffic on my story about the resignation at Barts and the London.  Usually, the traffic peaks in the 24 hours after publication.  This time, however, it is still going strong 60 hours afterwards.  And I was also alerted by a concerned colleague that Peter, the CEO, was onto me.

I thought that I would give an insight into why I wrote the story.  After all, my time in the NHS may well be limited.  I can picture it.  A full Trust-wide meeting, and Militant Manager is asked to stand up.  "We know who you are.  We have tracked the IP footprints."  There are only two ways it can go.  There could be a Spartacus moment (thereafter renamed the Militant Manager moment); or I am lead away whimpering like a 6-year old girl.  So given my time with you is limited, I thought I would say something about why I wrote the piece.

It was primarily about balance and scrutiny in the media.  I get irritated by lazy stories - as you can read on this blog entry.  That is how I felt about the resignation story as reported in the press.  My feeling was that people had rushed to the most convenient headline - NHS cuts:

• The Independent: Inquiry launched after leading surgeon resigns over NHS cuts
• The Guardian: Patients physically harmed by NHS cuts and bad management, says surgeon

The stories lack context.  All of us have seen appalling situations in NHS hospitals - even the best of them.  And things go wrong.  It happens.  To get to the bottom of the situation needs more analysis, and context.  It is not always about cuts.

And that is what I was providing.  As you can see, my biggest issue was the stories did not address the agenda of the person involved.   I published what struck me as the potential agenda.  I could well be wrong.  But it made you think, didn't it?

And the rest (including me) is now history.