Thread by @tribunaltweets

Second morning session in Peggie vs NHS Fife & Dr B Upton.

J - we've had a comment from a remote observer, that they can't see the witness. We moved the witness to the current position to reduce the distraction from the stenographers. We will maintain the current arrangement and then think about it at lunch.

NC - IB said yesterday that she was unsure what sex she was because she had not had her chromosomes tested. Are you also uncertain.
GM - i believe I am female
NC - and do you believe that's medically important and relevant information about you
GM - what am I meant to say? yes.

NC - email from J Doyle, you were clear in your answer that this was about SP raising concerns about DU in the f cr.
GM - I wasn't present, but that's what I believe it was about
NC - you suggested transgender awareness training so it was obvious what it was about

GM - yes
NC - clarifies GM title, and J Doyle title. And J Doyle was senior person on call when incident occurred and he suggested suspension.
GM - yes
J - need to catch up
NC - Doyle head of nursing acute services, but time of incident. Would you expect heads of nursing

to be involved.
P1 - I can't hear your answer at all
GM - it depends on who the i/x officer is. I was asked to appoint someone
NC - it was for you to decide who would i/x since ED could not.
GM - yes
NC - email says 5 Jan 2024, 3 attachments, listed , pdf, i/x planning,

and an NHS Scotland work force i/x planning doc. Is that what's attached as Attach 2 to that email. Do you agree.
GM - it would appear to be the 2nd attachment
NC - that is an i/x doc with lots of info filled in, populated with quite a lot of info
GM - yes

NC - email from J Doyle to ED, seems to be giving lots of specific instructions, that's surprising
GM - ED was a relatively new nurse manager, so he was giving her support from his experience
NC - wasn't it for you to have oversight of this, given that you would have to replace

ED.
NC - J Doyle not giving evidence in this tribunal
GM - not as far as I am aware.
NC - decision to suspend was made after meeting on 3 Jan,
GM - yes
NC - there will be a i/x following this type of suspension, it follows
GM - yes, you will be starting a workforce i/x

J - is that different from a disciplinary i/x
GM - recites several different types of ix
NC - decision to suspend and i/x are the same
GM - yes
NC - exchanges within HR that you were not copied on, I will ask you some questions. Look at email of 3 Jan from J Hurkiss (sp)

wants to update colleagues on advice she has given to ED, suspension being the last resort, day shifts and supervision, ED thought it was almost impossible to keep them separate, spoke with GD, there seems to be a patient safety issue hence suspension is the best course.

you were behind the drive for suspension
GM - it was ED's decision
NC - you were discussing with ED, were you a part of the decision
GM - I was reviewing the risk assessment and forwarding to my manager
NC - did you agree with the decision
GM - ED had additional info about

2 alleged incidents involving patients, that I did not have, that made it a patient safety decision.
NC - did you see a completed risk assessment form from ED at that time
GM - I can't recall
NC - you say ED had other info about 2 patient concerns, J Hurkess email refers to

those concerns 'allegation that nurse sought out dr in CR and compared them to convicted rapist, it was a hate incident requ'd a datix, and was walking out of cubicles when Dr entered them. Let's go to the full document. Can you see on the Datix that the C was leaving

cubicles when dr was entering
GM - says something about an escalation of behaviour between nurse and doctor
NC - that's as close as we get
GM - yes
NC - ED had only been in clinical nurse manager role for a couple of weeks at that time
GM - a short period time, but experienced

NC - your sources of info: Datix, JD and email from J Doyle, correct
GM - yes
NC - ED's interview as a witness on 26 April 24, ED was asked was you were informed of incident on 24 Dec, and then asked of any further incidents in the AE that she was aware of - read her answer

to yourself, not out loud. It's clear from that ED had not heard anything about SP walking out on a patient, or refusing to communicate with DU.
GM - it seems to say that
NC - it says she became aware of it later when she had a statement from DU.
GM - I don't know when Beth

got that information.
NC - now onto complaint about 24 Dec & previous interactions, an email from Adam Watson (AW) which attaches 'formal complaint', and that is the first doc trace that has been shown to the Tribunal of that info being passed to the i/x team. Was that doc

in the hands of anyone before the 11 June? Was it given to anyone?
GM - I'm not aware of that.
NC - 3 paras 'the allegation' is that the nurse sought out a doctor in the CR, and compared to a sex offender, and was leaving cubicles when the dr entered. Has since discussed with

GM and wants to suspend. The same allegation is being referred to, the seriousness, are we agreed
GM - ask me again
NC - the allegation is that the nurse sought out the dr and had a confrontation referred to the cr, that is the same allegation
GM - I think there's also a

patient safety allegation being referred to.
NC - it is singular 'the allegation', it is the christmas eve allegation that is being referred to as serious
GM - the risk assessment included patient safety concern.
J - just for completeness, the next para we spoke at length about

the allegations, so is plural
NC - thank you yes. But again that tends to support the suggestion that you were relying on the seriousness of the Christmas Eve allegation to suspend.
GM - I think it was all the incidents
NC - did you see the detail
GM - I don't recall

NC - a request made in September, unfortunately you are muddling up the suspension checklist with the risk assessment. I need the original risk assessment. It doesn't seem that any risk assessment was actually done by ED at the time.
GM - I can't recall

NC - we have an interpretation, we see Melanie Jorgenson (sp) email of 4 Jan, second para 'I agree with Jackie that this risk can be mitigated, I assume it has to do with patients undergoing a similar process'. That's referring to trans patients - do you agree.
GM - I think so

NC - so the perception that SP might treat a trans patient badly, is the risk
GM - yes, it seems so
NC - it say we have no evidence of the nurse leaving the room when doctor came in, no complaints over many years of service, why suspend
GM - ED thought they couldn't be kept

apart.
NC - so SP was suspended because she did not want DU in the cr.
GM - she was suspended because of the Datix, there are a number of allegations that must be investigated.
NC - do you agree that patient care allegations were only raised as result of the Christmas Eve

incident.
GM - no, I don't think so.
NC - do you agree that if the only concern was the incident in the CR and not the patient care concerns, there would be no suspension
GM - the suspension was based on a risk assessment that was not undertaken by me.

NC - q8, ED evidence in disc/x. Please read.
GM - I've read it
NC - does that match what ED told you when you first discussed the incident
GM - the convo I had was about the risk assessment she had undertaken, I already had the background from the Datix, she will have

told me some of it and I was aware.
NC - turning to DU's account. Sorry before we do that, can I confirm you are most senior witness from FIfe giving evidence. I want to ask you about what is in this now, having read that - is there anything that strikes you as completely

unacceptable, if it is true.
GM - yes I find it unacceptable that one colleague would confront another.
NC - what is unacceptable
GM - quoting from the statement
NC - yes
GM - SP asking what genes DU had, how they came to be in the CR together, a terrible incident to happen

Christmas Day.;
NC - what exactly was unacceptable about it
GM - a discriminatory allegation
NC - what specifically is discriminatory
GM - nurse asked the dr about his genes
NC - is that the worse thing to your mind
GM - not considering the Datix, that's worst thing

NC - if the Tribunal finds that C did not ask DU about his genes, it was not appropriate for her to tell DU shouldn't be in changing room,
GM - clarify
NC - if SP had only said she didn't think DU should be in f cr.
GM - it had been addressed, we had taken advice DU was

entitled to use the f cr.
NC - so it was discriminatory to raise the issue at all?
GM - yes.
J - time for a 5 minute break I think.
Court rises.

@threadreaderapp unroll please.