Thread by @tribunaltweets

We will continue with the afternoon session of Peggie v Fife Health Board and Dr Upton in a few minutes. Reporting from the first part of the afternoon, with links to our Substack, abbreviations and background information is in the thread included.

https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1890031571333415347

NC - page 277, email between HR people , you are copied, advice that JH had given you, advising others of it
ED - yes
NC - is that an accurate account of the convo
ED - yes, and I think Jackie would have had access to the Datix
NC - does that email contain any info new to you

ED - its 3 Jan, I'd seen the Datix, most that I already knew. And advice was what she had already given me to keep SP and DU on different shifts, that all makes sense
NC - we can see, by now, you must have known the whole story, including the two allegations on patient care

ED - yes, I did
NC - I've been referring to those as the missing patient incident and the resus incident, I will be referring to those quite a bit, (expands with details)
ED - understand
NC - turn to page 533, have you seen this document before

ED - yes I think I had seen it
NC - roughly when
ED - no, sorry i can't, I think it was after 4 January, I was asking DU to give a formal statement
NC - and is that what you got
ED - I don't think it was as much as that,
NC - lets go look at the formal statement

ED - I didn't see that until after,
NC - we've been calling these docs 'hate incident' and 'formal complaint' when did you see these
ED - I saw it after 23 January (implies formal complaint)
<<<sound dropped missed 90 seconds>>

NC - your interview with AG on IX, answer to q9, the statement you were subsequently given in April was the longer document yes
ED - I'm sorry.....
NC - let's break that down. This document is 'hate incident' and you'll see that it's all about the incident on Christmas eve.

NC - you must have had that on 23 jan, well before April.
ED - I must have
NC - now the other document 'formal complaint', has quite a lot of common material with 'hate incident' but has quite a lot of additional content, DU's timeline of incidents with SP, 2 CR incidents

the resus incident and the missing patient complaint.
Yes?
ED - yes
NC - doc on 23 Jan was about Christmas eve. This longer doc has all those additional elements. Now your IX interview, 'I was subsequently given a statement by DU that SP would walk out of a room if DU walked in'

NC - so you must have seen this longer statement before April?
ED - yes
NC - now back to JH's account of earlier convo, on 3 Jan, it was clear that she knew about the resus incident,
ED - there was some earlier verbal dissemination of information by DU

NC - to whom
ED - Louise Searle,
NC - when
ED - on 30 December. I knew about it on 31 December,
NC - and you told JH?
ED - yes.
NC - so that's why your email on the 26th was not so urgent in tone (deal with when back in office in new year)

ED - yes, because I wrote it on the 26th.
NC - Hearing about the other elements made it feel more urgent?
ED - yes
NC - the allegations about patient care, must have been concerning to you, especially that the C had been so prejudiced against DU that she couldn't work with him

and had walked out of resus.
ED - yes
NC - and if that is true, that is incredibly serious
ED - from what I can gather there was no harm to the patient, we don't want people leaving, its not ideal but I believe that DU had remained in the cubicle,
NC - you said in your IX

interview that you were not aware of it at the time
ED - that's correct
NC - because if it had you would have been dealing with it, if it had been reported you would have investigated it urgently
ED - certainly we would have had to follow up and understand her reasons

NC - if it was an innocent reason, it would have been a short ix, wouldnt it
ED - yes
NC - but if DU's account was true, a nurse who could abandon her duties and couldn't work with someone because of their bigotry, that would be unacceptable
ED - that wouldn't be ideal

NC - wouldn't be ideal is quite an understatement, it would end a nurse's career if true
ED - it would need to be investigated,
NC - that's understood, its hypothetical, assume it had been investigated, assume there was no innocent reason, SP had left the cubicle because of her

hatred of trans people, it would have been extremely serious.
ED - needs to be an investigation
NC - but assume that's how it went, it could have ended her career, she would have been struck off and fired.
ED - that wouldn't be my decision but yes, it might happen.

NC - email from Kate Searle (KS), please read, its possible you're reading for the first time, KS says 'Louise has also spoken to Laura and other charge nurse, to inform SP that her actions were unacceptable and to make a plan to go forward' Did you agree to that?

ED - I agreed I would speak with SP because we only had one side of the story, and we needed to plan how to go forward.
NC - did you plan to speak with SP
ED - clarifies, that email was sent on the 30th and I wasn't aware on that point that it was SP, there were no names in

it other than DU. I wasn't available and didn't know that it was SP until 31st when i was back in the office.
NC - so if KS thinks that you will be speaking with SP to tell her that her actions are unacceptable she's gotten ahead of herself hasnt' she
ED - she's only got one

got one side of the events.
NC - so you need to speak with SP to get her side of the events.
ED - yes.
NC - another email from KS on 30 Dec, she's writing to you directly, thanking you for your support, and had a long talk with DU and DU knows that we condemn SPs actions.

ED - I think she's responding to my email when I said it was totally unacceptable, I didn't know it was SP.
NC - did you get back to KS and question the 'condemn SPs actions'
ED - no I didn't read that email until 31 December and I had already spoken to Louise, and knew it was

against SP. She (Louise) had been told about the 2 incidents, and she got advice to put SP on leave because those were serious allegations
NC - so it's early for KS to be condemning SPs actions.
ED - I can't speak for her but it is quite early, yes.

NC - is it fair to say that it is hard for you to speak that way to consultants
ED - I wouldn't say that. I'm quite a strong person, I have to work with senior consultants, we are quite a flat structure, and I can speak up.
NC - now KS email to DU, 'Louise condemns SP actions,

and they will be meeting with SP to condemn her actions and tell her its unacceptable.
ED - I didn't see either of these emails until the 31st
NC - is that one of those times when you needed to have a difficult convo and make it clear to KS that it was early to be condemning

one side or the other.
ED - I didn't see KS that day, I got advice from HR as to what to do
NC - it was clear that you would be leading the IX at this point
ED - i think it was clear early on that I would be leading IX.
NC - looking at the time, is it time to finish?

J - yes, I think so, how long tomorrow morning NC
NC - I think the morning at least until lunchtime
J - now discussing timing for tomorrow. We may not finish with evidence and our questions tomorrow until say 2:30 or 3pm and we have applications to address.

J - we will resume tomorrow at 10 am, no other witnesses required.

Court rises.
End of 2nd afternoon session.

@threadreaderapp unroll please