         |
LETTERS TO THE PRESS
Coventry Evening Telegraph - www.iccoventry.co.uk
Coventry Observer - www.coventryobserver.co.uk
Radio
7th January 2002
Mr Adam Brimellow
BBC Radio 4
BBC London
Dear Mr Brimellow,
Regarding suspension of Dr Raj Mattu
I understand that you already have some insight into the appalling situation at our NHS Trust and the plight of Dr Mattu, and Reverend Jim Canning provided me your details after I had recently heard you on Radio 4.
It is clear that having spoken out for patient safety, Dr Mattu has been victimised intensely for whistle blowing, and equally distasteful, he has been subjected to racial discrimination.
I hope you will agree that the prejudice that the Trust Management has manifest is totally unacceptable and must be challenged and addressed in the strongest terms available.
I therefore call on your help with this issue and look forward to your support in ensuring that the victimisation of Dr Mattu is brought to an end and that natural justice is done.
I feel very strongly about zero tolerance of racism in modern British Society, and expect the perpetrators (worryingly in senior public office) to be addressed in the firmest manner, and prevented from subjecting any further victims to such suffering under our auspices.
Yours sincerely,
MR BRIAN KING
9th June 2003
Mr Bob Brolly
BBC Radio WM
Dear Mr Brolly,
A number of meetings have been held regarding the plight of Dr Raj Mattu, an eminent Heart Specialist at our Coventry Hospitals Trust. I appeal to you on behalf of our committee and the people of Coventry to help remedy the unjust and inhumane treatment to which the Trust continues to subject Dr Mattu.
Dr Mattu is a Coventry success. He is a locally raised boy who participated fully in community activities, such as football, other sports, singing and playing music, charity work, voluntary work and fund raising amongst many others. He attended top universities and trained in our finest hospitals. He has established an international reputation and contributed widely to our knowledge of the development and care of heart disease. He was headhunted back to Coventry to help establish a new medical school and hospital, which he readily took up in his desire to support and give something back to his home town, compromising any personal ambition.
At an early stage he found deficiencies in the care provided at the Trust and these were largely due to organisational problems and management decisions. Dr Mattu introduced improvements despite resistance from the management and the "old school", but many of his concerns were met by management denials of problems, and openly hostility towards Dr Mattu for raising these concerns. Dr Mattu was amongst a number of consultants who raised concerns from 1999 onwards about the management policy to overcrowd bays designed and equipped for four patients with five. Over 150 serious clinical incident forms were submitted to the management by consultants and these were ignored. This included Dr Mattu's report of the avoidable death of a 35 year old man who could not be resuscitated because the clinical team were prevented from accessing this fifth patient and also getting resuscitation equipment to him. This practice also led to further deaths, including a patient in January 2000. This management policy was only bought to an end after the Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) investigated and intervened. The management hostility towards Dr Mattu heightened thereafter. A near unanimous vote of no confidence was passed in the Clinical Director for heart care and subsequently Dr Mattu was given a near unanimous vote to replace him, even though Dr Mattu had not volunteered or nominated himself, but the management refused to make changes. In November 2001 the Trust was subsequently exposed as having by far the worst heart disease death rates in the country.
The Trust managers and "old school" persecuted Dr Mattu further and encouraged a number of unfounded allegations to be made against him. Dr Mattu raised a formal grievance against managers for victimisation, but the Trust usually refused to investigate them and on the one occasion it did both managers simply walked out of the enquiry hearing because they did not wish to be cross-examined or investigated. These managers faced no repercussions for this.
Two of the junior doctors who were emphatic witnesses providing testimony supporting Dr Mattu's victimisation and persecution by the management, including a sworn affidavit, were subsequently put under intense pressure by the management. This involved a number of acts including the issuing of inappropriate letters of termination of contracts. These were subsequently rescinded and within days of this, one of these junior doctors significantly changed his story and raised allegations of bullying by Dr Mattu at a time when this individual let it be known widely amongst his colleagues that the Trust had agreed to make him an additional discretionary payment of about £20,000.
This individual has been found to have poor integrity due to a number of emerging facts and, therefore, cannot be considered as providing reliable evidence. He was often attending at work under the influence of alcohol, he was promoted to a new post within days of registering his complaint with strong support from the management allegedly using a falsified CV, and he was caught having stolen Dr Mattu's computer. This is hardly the basis upon which to prevent one of the countries rising experts in heart disease from attending work.
Three months later, the second researcher also reversed his story to support the allegations raised by the first and committed perjury in the process. This second junior doctor also received an irregular promotion to work for an establishment doctor overtly hostile towards Dr Mattu. He was caught tampering with evidence by downloading and deleting files and data from Dr Mattu's computer within 48 hours of his submitting a witness statement against Dr Mattu. The Trust does not seem to regard this behaviour as a cause for concern.
Ironically, Dr Mattu has been suspended for over 15 months for the very same allegations he had previously raised against the management. The same Trust managers and Trust Board members have previously manifested malice towards Dr Mattu with express statements to damage his career and to "see the back of him", along with 4 other consultants who have raised concerns. Indeed, the CHI report warned about the victimisation of consultants who raised clinical concerns by managers only months earlier.
Dr Mattu and his advisors have been severely hampered in dealing with the complaint by the Trust and he has been subjected to an extensive suspension. The Trust took more than 3 months to obtain a witness statement from the complainant and more than 7 months to let Dr Mattu have sight of it. This is wholly unacceptable and improper. There is now proof that substantiates the Trust conducting a biased and unfair investigation into Dr Mattu.
The integrity of senior managers and the probity of their investigation causes serious concern for a number of reasons. It is well recognised that the Trust breached the procedures and deadlines, did not test the evidence and allegations for validity, failed to interview some key witnesses that could disprove the allegations against Dr Mattu, chose to produce distorted and misrepresentative Trust summaries, submitted erroneous summaries that were challenged for their accuracy, selectively provided non-agreed evidence to a panel, breached procedure by forming a panel, proceeded with a panel that was not provided for in the policies and procedures despite failing to obtain agreement to the panel from Dr Mattu and his advisors, attempted to circumvent the Trust's own procedures by asking the panel to determine on disciplinary action rather than a disciplinary inquiry, led the panel to determine that the matter should be considered under personal rather than professional misconduct, amongst many others. This inquiry was neither fair nor proper and biased against Dr Mattu.
It is appalling that a manifestly defective Trust management have sought to abuse the authority that is placed with them on our behalf and mistreated such an eminent and capable specialist who returned to his home town and spoke up for the local people about the deficiencies in medical care that our city is provided. Dr Mattu spoke up for us in our moment of need, he now needs Coventry to speak up for him. We hope you will help in raising awareness of the serious events at our Trust and help in securing natural justice for Dr Raj Mattu and the people of Coventry.
I attach a document that sets out the facts and assure you that every comment contained within this can be substantiated. I look forward to hearing from you at the earliest opportunity as a matter of urgency.
Yours sincerely,
MR BRIAN KING
FOR DR RAJ MATTU REINSTATEMENT COMMITTEE
enc
Television
