Senior nurse accused of tipping patient off mattress
A SENIOR nurse who helped pioneer a new form of learning disability care was sacked following allegations of bullying, harassment, unlawful discrimination and intimidation.
Mark Thorneycroft, aged 45, also stands accused of tipping a patient off a mattress and sweeping patients off their feet.
-
THERAPY: Chebsey Close home in Bucknall.
Now Mr Thorneycroft is suing his ex-employer, NHS Combined Healthcare Trust for unfair dismissal at an employment tribunal, where he is fighting the claims.
The nurse was sacked in September 2011, months after he had been suspended together with several other staff heading a new rehabilitation programme for patients with severe learning disabilities.
Panasonic Store Camera•20x Optical Zoom LEICA DC Lens from 24mm...
View details
What Digital camera Gold award winning DMCTZ40
SAVE £20 off our store price ONLY with this voucher
Plus you can also claim a SD card or spare battery
Choice of colours, free parking behind store
Terms: Print this voucher and hand in at Panasonic Store Hanley to save £20 off our store price ONLY £269.90
Contact: 01782 342609
Valid until: Friday, May 31 2013
Based at the trust's Chebsey Close home in Bucknall, the system – involving intensive 'talking therapies' to help patients return to the community – was subsequently dropped.
On the opening day of the week-long hearing in Birmingham, Combined's bosses said they had taken disciplinary action against Mr Thorneycroft, from Brown Edge, to 'keep patients safe'.
They said they acted on fears voiced by colleagues and others. Leadership and workforce director Caroline Donovan said: "All actions we have taken have been in the interest of our patients' safety and to ensure they are treated with dignity and respect at all times – key elements of the care provided to vulnerable patients.
"We are confident we have acted appropriately in the circumstances.
"This has been a complex case which has addressed a number of serious concerns raised by both NHS staff and other individuals about the actions and attitudes of the former member of staff."
However, Piers Martin, representing Mr Thorneycroft, said the accusations were 'woefully' lacking in detail and exact dates.
"Of 36 NHS witnesses only one makes reference to the alleged 'patient tipping' incident, " Mr Martin said.
"Furthermore, a large number of witnesses failed to sign their statements and there is conflict about who is responsible for upholding the allegations."
Mr Martin also questioned the legitimacy of the investigation. Shortly before the case opened on Wednesday, Combined issued a statement to staff saying: "The disciplinary action was taken on the back of evidence that the individual had breached the high standards expected by the trust, set out in its policies.
"Such action was deemed to be 'acts of gross misconduct'.
"It is the trust's highest priority to ensure all people using its services are treated with dignity and respect, and receive safe quality care at all times."
Mr Thorneycroft, who was sacked following an internal disciplinary hearing, was due to present his case and call witnesses today, and on Monday. Two days have then been set aside for the panel, chaired by Judge Hilary Harding, to read more evidence before a verdict is expected later next week.
A national review team recommended the trust tell the public that the disciplinary action against the Chebsey Close clinicians was not linked to any abuse allegations.
The trust had said it was purely about 'management style and culture.'
12 Comments
View all
by jonronjim
Tuesday, January 29 2013, 1:12PM
“I do not understand the legal in's and out's of this case but what I do know is the man, Mark Thorneycroft is an upright, just and honest man and the term "bully" does not sit right with me when describing Mr. Thorneycroft, Vas82001 should learn about the subject before 'putting pen to paper' - an old fashioned term I know, but you know what I mean - another old fashioned term is 'engage brain before opening your mouth' this does seem very applicable advice to Vas82001.”
by curly-girly
Monday, January 28 2013, 10:38PM
“Vass82001 when reading your quote 'I and many others witnessed Mr Thorneycrofts practice over a number of years' I take it that you or the 'many others' never felt it was your duty if you was so concerned with Mr Thorneycrofts practice to do something about it? Would it not have been your duty of care to have challenged something you obviously feel so strongly about? If it was so questionable and you did nothing to stop it does that not mean you are guilty also?
Or could it be that there was no concerns until some underlying political motive meant that it was necessary to stop the good work that was going on which has led to this court case.
I am sure that all of us that have worked in the NHS have seen how gaining foundation trust status has been a priority, more so than the welfare of the clients who we are paid to look after
I will be watching the outcome with interest and lets see what the law of the land has to say............and if it is found in Mr Thorneycrofts favour lets hope the people responsible are brought to account and a 'Roburst investigation' is conducted!”
by nhstwts150
Monday, January 28 2013, 2:52PM
“Mr Thornycroft and others have become a pawn in the Trust's game here. The issue of CAR was considered laudable quite rightly by the Trust when it was introduced, as it followed the practice of positive bahavioural support as recommended by the NDTI. There can be no dispute over this and indeed there can be no dispute over the support that the Trust initially offered.
However, when it became apparent that CAR was actually working, that service users lives were actually improved, but this meant that beds for which the Trust recieved its income would be lost, thus impacting on the size of the Trust and its ability to gain Foundation Status, the Board of Directors quite clearly needed to stop it to save themselves (otherwise how were they to gain the status that allowed them to create their own empire). What better way to do this than to trump up allegations against its champion.
As for a robust investigation, I'm sure that Vass82001 knows full well that there have been far more than one "robust investigation", because if the first one doesn't tell you what you need to know, then you keep having them done (at the tax payers expense) until finally you offer enough incentive to someone who will report what you need.
Who is the real bully here? Those who want to keep patients on medication for their own gain or those who are passionate enough to make a difference to their lives?”
by Vass82001
Monday, January 28 2013, 7:22AM
“Not nasty, just accurate.”
by jostaffs
Sunday, January 27 2013, 8:47PM
“Vass82001 what nasty comments you make. You clearly don't know this man and even less about "CAR". The focus is NOT on intensive talking therapies, your knowledge is evidently not first hand. It is based on positive behavioural support as recommended by the NDTI.
Your comments give the impression that you may have come across MrThornycroft and his work and yet if you had never been taught by him, or worked with him I believe you would have a better understanding. Its therefore evident to me that you are no more than a malicious gossip.
Clearly you have not understood the concept of contemporary thinking with regard to improving a person's quality of life beyond the outdated concept of institutionalisation. Your sad outdated thinking reflects the views of a minority within The Trust.
I however must bow to your superior inside knowledge of the case, "robust investigation"? I think that's yet to be decided don't you...”
by Vass82001
Sunday, January 27 2013, 7:16PM
“ZamzinZorg you obviously have not suffered at the hands of this bully, I and many others witnessed Mr Thorneycrofts practice over a number of years, I would like to make the following points.
The CAR system, Mr Thorneycrofts so called " model" relies on intensive talking therapies ; the majority of his clients were severely cognitively impaired,are extremely challenging and in the main do not have the intellectual capability to engage in "intensive talking therapies".
The talking therapies that Mr Thorneycrofts did apply was to use discriminatory language including the description that this client group were "window lickers".
This is not and should never be the value base of anyone working within a learning disability service. I would like to congratulate Combined Healthcare for robustly investigating this man and his working methods.
”
by Vass82001
Sunday, January 27 2013, 7:15PM
“ZamzinZorg you obviously have not suffered at the hands of this bully, I and many others witnessed Mr Thorneycrofts practice over a number of years, I would like to make the following points.
The CAR system, Mr Thorneycrofts so called " model" relies on intensive talking therapies ; the majority of his clients were severely cognitively impaired,are extremely challenging and in the main do not have the intellectual capability to engage in "intensive talking therapies".
The talking therapies that Mr Thorneycrofts did apply was to use discriminatory language including the description that this client group were "window lickers".
This is not and should never be the value base of anyone working within a learning disability service. I would like to congratulate Combined Healthcare for robustly investigating this man and his working methods.
”
by Vass82001
Sunday, January 27 2013, 7:12PM
“ZamzinZorg you obviously have not suffered at the hands of this bully, I and many others witnessed Mr Thorneycrofts practice over a number of years, I would like to make the following points.
The CAR system, Mr Thorneycrofts so called " model" relies on intensive talking therapies ; the majority of his clients were severely cognitively impaired,are extremely challenging and in the main do not have the intellectual capability to engage in "intensive talking therapies".
The talking therapies that Mr Thorneycrofts did apply was to use discriminatory language including the description that this client group were "window lickers".
This is not and should never be the value base of anyone working within a learning disability service. I would like to congratulate Combined Healthcare for robustly investigating this man and his working methods.
”
by ZamzinZorg
Saturday, January 26 2013, 2:50PM
“1957SE seems a bitter sort! What nastiness.
How did this man ever hurt you?
You have someone - working hard: reading, thinking and struggling in an uphill battle to try and improve the lives of the handicapped: that's got to be good right? So what is your beef?
I don't recall ever hearing that Mr Thorneycoft's ideas ever failed - the opposite is what I heard...blamed staff? I don't think so either.
I heard he tried hard to educate and teach people, help them see the world had changed - told them where to look too. There are those who did not want to wake up and see that the world of the asylum has long been past its sell by date!
Only in in this Trust could staff (and bosses maybe?) try to out-think clear Government policy.”
by jostaffs
Saturday, January 26 2013, 12:36AM
“it seems very easy to criticise an individual when that person has not yet had the opportunity to respond to the false allegations made against him. Perhaps 1957SE has a personal axe to grind. It would seem more sensible to leave their comments until after the tribunal hearing. Their time would clearly be better spent looking at the evidence base for quality care as recommended in the National Development Team for Inclusion (NDTI) report. Perhaps you would like to comment on their damning report about the services now being delivered by North Staffs Combined Health Care. After viewing this it should be obvious that Mr Thorneycroft and his ideology (the CAR model), were both in line with the NDTI recommendations, best practice and in the interests of the service users. This clearly did not meets the needs of either the Trust or some staff, perhaps we should ask why? I wonder whose needs take priority for these people? Lets hope that at the end of the court hearing the public will be given a clear statement as to the reasons for this. Perhaps Mrs Donovan can explain why the Trust now use an outdated model of care, with a poor evidence base and even poorer outcomes! The more enlightened amongst us have realised that the earth is not flat.”