So in some ways it was no surprise that Cork University Hospital (CUH) commissioned an investigation into its pathology department last year.
The survey aimed to find out how the relationship between staff and management is, whether people are happy and productive at work, and what kind of atmosphere prevails. Masu.
The results of this investigation were alarming.
What has emerged is a culture of bullying, a lack of trust, some staff under intense pressure, and a personal approach to work, with staff not benefiting from such work. This caused resentment among the people.
time Questioning the results, CUH issued a statement claiming the study was part of a “pilot” project as part of “planned efforts to strengthen CUH’s overall attractiveness and retention strategy.” did.
If that was correct, the results would have been shocking.
However, it is far from a regular or planned investigation; Informal complaints and the general feeling within the department were so wrong that it suggests an investigation was carried out in pathology.
The Department of Pathology at CUH carries out important work centered on the scientific study of disease.
In this respect, this discipline largely forms the basis for the understanding and practice of modern medicine.
The CUH department serves the south-west of the country, including referrals from hospitals in Limerick, Waterford and Kerry, as well as parts of south Leinster.
Currently, about a quarter of the department’s workload occurs within CUH itself.
We provide pathology services for cancer services, processing and reporting over 90,000 specimens annually.
The department has over 100 professional staff spanning a wide range of scientific and medical fields.
There were also allegations that he was bullied and that his hospital stay was spent on personal work.
Informal complaints were submitted to management at CUH, with at least one being anonymous but apparently coming from the department.
Gravity consultants have been drafted in to conduct cultural surveys.
At least 79 staff members were interviewed about all issues.
The findings included the following:
- Regardless of role, there were high levels of dissatisfaction across departments, with most respondents falling into the ‘very dissatisfied’ category.
- There was an imbalance between public and private work. This narrative is expressed several times throughout the report and appears to have a significant impact on general workload and stress levels.
- There seems to be a “real lack of vision” within the department, or at least a “lack of vision” that people are aware of.
- Despite highlighting their lack of comfort, some felt pushed to endorse their competency in tasks or take risks.
- There was an atmosphere in which some people would “get away” for poor performance, while others would be pulled up for minor infractions.
- Among the responses, some consultants made “strong comments” such as “you can do what you want without any repercussions.”
- The communication style of some within the department was “aggressive, with yelling occurring regularly.”
- When it comes to leaders evaluating staff performance, “there seems to be more emphasis on what wasn’t done than what was done.”
- Scientists at the department felt that there was “too much emphasis on quantity rather than quality, which will ultimately impact on patient care.” This sentiment was not shared by the lead scientist, the report notes.
- There appeared to be a “lack of trust” not only between staff and leadership, but also between scientific staff and some medical consultants.
- Employees were maxed out, staff were reaching burnout, and this was not sustainable. Phrases such as “sinking ship” emphasized this.
All staff were given a summary of the report shortly after it was published in July last year.
According to a statement issued by CUH in response to a number of detailed questions submitted by CUH, the full report has not been distributed “in view of the possibility that staff may be identified from their contributions to the review”, according to CUH. That’s what it means. .
The statement also suggested that changes have occurred over the past six months.
“The process to date has identified opportunities for improvement related to culture, processes, and direction (related to vision, mission, and strategy),” the statement said.
That sounds encouraging, if vague.
However, several CUH sources suggest that little substantive change has occurred since the cultural survey.
On February 20th, this newspaper sent in detailed questions regarding the department.
Two days later, CUH senior management addressed a meeting of all staff in the pathology department about the changes needed.
This was mentioned obliquely in a statement released by CUH on Monday.
“Just last week, a new mission, vision and values were agreed with staff, and strategic objectives for the next 12 to 36 months are being developed,” the statement said.
“This will be supported at all levels of development programs.”
The study and CUH’s statement raise several questions.
If this study had been carried out as a routine pilot project, as the statement suggests, the results would have been shocking.
Conversely, if the study had been conducted in response to concerns about the department’s culture, the results may not have been surprising.
In any case, the results clearly required immediate action.
It shows that such measures have not been taken, and certainly not to the extent required.
Why was a staff meeting convened to outline a new vision seven months after the report was published and two days after the hospital was informed that the report had been made known to the media? Is it?
Is firefighting at a hospital a public relations activity?
What is clear is that there are serious problems in key sectors of the health service and there appears to be no urgency to address them.