Iodem was initially instructed to look at a complaint submitted by a clinician in the involvement of the care of a
patient with a neuroendocrine tumour.
The complaint consisted of several serious allegations about poor clinical care by the clinician’s colleagues. The
complaint alleged unnecessary delays, leading to an adverse outcome for the patient.
It formed part of a substantial series of complaints by the same clinician, submitted over a lengthy period of time.
The vast majority of these complaints were found to have no substance.
Iodem produced a detailed clinical chronology, which called into question both the factual and clinical foundation of
the complaint. The information gathered included interviews with individuals involved, a full review and analysis of
medical records, as well as detailed assessment of all the evidence.
Through a comprehensive and balanced review of the care provided, the information gathered, combined with Iodem’s
knowledge of relevant national medical council, Data Protection Rules and national clinical guidelines, identified
several potential breaches on the part of the complainant. As a result, through its knowledge of clinical systems on
a national and international basis, Iodem concluded that the complaints system was not being used to generate
learning on the part of the complainant but instead was used to drive an alternative agenda.
Iodem was able to offer support and guidance upon strategies to improve team working and address the cohesion issues
that were being impacted by the series of complaints. Iodem was able to provide support for the team and structure a
plan to address team dynamics in order to promote a culture of safety, where all members felt valued and had an
opportunity to contribute to patient safety.