Scots Ebola Nurse, Pauline Cafferkey Charged Over Concealing Temperature

[Arthur Little]

Oh dear, :icon_rolleyes: ... hasn't the poor woman been through enough already?

www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/ebola-nurse-pauline-cafferkey-charged-over-concealing-temperature/ar-BBvMnWL ... :ReadIt:

[Michael Parnham]

Oh dear, :icon_rolleyes: ... hasn't the poor woman been through enough already?

www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/ebola-nurse-pauline-cafferkey-charged-over-concealing-temperature/ar-BBvMnWL ... :ReadIt:

My thought also Arthur, shame really just let her get on with her life she's not harmed anyone!

[Arthur Little]

My thought also Arthur, shame really just let her get on with her life she's not harmed anyone!

:iagree:, Michael ... trouble is, if she's convicted by a Disciplinary Panel representing the Nursing and Midwifery Council, there's every chance she could well be "struck off" the Nursing Register and forbidden to continue practising her profession ... which would be an awful shame for one who's otherwise so obviously competent and dedicated!

[johncar54]

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/ebola-nurse-pauline-cafferkey-charged-over-concealing-temperature/ar-BBvMnWL

Quote The NMC alleged that the Scottish nurse “allowed an incorrect temperature to be recorded” on 29 December 2014 and “intended to conceal from Public Health England staff that you had a temperature higher than 38C”.

A high temperature is one of the first symptoms of Ebola haemorrhagic fever. NHS workers who returned from volunteering were all supposed to fill in questionnaires about their exposure to the virus in their patients and have their temperatures taken by PHE staff at Heathrow airport.

" ..... she's not harmed anyone!"

That was a fantastic piece of luck she was carrying Ebola and could have killed many.

Had she infected others, by the concealment, the public quite rightly would be calling 'for her head'

[Steve.r]

Anything can bring on a temperature, could have been something she drank or food poisoning. If she followed the directions of the WHO, why would she have thought she was infected with Ebola? How do we really know that she deceived anyone? lets not accuse before we know the facts.

[Arthur Little]

Anything can bring on a temperature, could have been something she drank or food poisoning. If she followed the directions of the WHO, why would she have thought she was infected with Ebola? How do we really know that she deceived anyone? lets not accuse before we know the facts.

Quite! :cwm25: ... Why on earth would ANY caring health professional of her calibre deliberately set out to mislead the authorities, if she had even imagined doing so would endanger others' lives?? :NoNo:

[Doc Alan]

The NMC hearing is expected to be in Edinburgh next month, so we, and this nurse, will have to wait until then for the decision on the misconduct allegations, first made over 18 months ago.


Of course a high temperature is one of the first symptoms of Ebola virus infection - also malaria and countless other causes of fever, not all of which are even due to infections.



When this nurse returned from Sierra Leone in December 2014, with many other NHS volunteers, there was a screening procedure at Heathrow whereby Public Health England ( PHE ) had nurses to take the temperatures of the travellers. It appears that there weren’t sufficient screening staff, so PHE encouraged volunteers to take their own temperatures. This nurse’s temperature was high, and was taken several more times, but she is alleged to have taken paracetamol ( which would lower her temperature ) and was eventually told she could board her flight to Glasgow. The allegations of concealing high temperature may be false - but, even if true, this could be misjudgement made under stress.


Had she been sent to London’s Northwick Park Hospital straight from Heathrow, her diagnosis and medical management would have started much earlier. While her flight to Glasgow and onward travel home COULD have resulted in others being infected, none actually did ( Ebola is spread by bodily fluids and there is no suggestion she was vomiting ).


As we know, she was seriously ill twice - the first time after diagnosis in Scotland and transfer to the Royal Free Hospital in London ; the second with meningitis, again treated at the Royal Free. Much was learned as a result of this previously unexpected, late, severe, relapse of infection.


She has had other health issues as a result of Ebola virus infection ; added to which there is this prolonged NMC investigation , and abuse on social media by trolls.


The cost of her treatments and the Heathrow screening arrangements are one thing. Some may even question the risks posed by volunteers who do such work in other countries, both to themselves and others. But nothing that could have happened at Heathrow Airport and thereafter should detract from the good she and others did in West Africa.


For members who may be interested to read further, the link to the full medical report ( published with Nurse Cafferkey’s permission and cooperation ) is here (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)30386-5/fulltext).

[Steve.r]

Thanks for that Alan. Again, I feel that sensationalist headlines try to sway public opinion into another witch hunt. Based on the facts, which will become even more clear after the court case, I reserve my right to presume innocent until proved otherwise.

[johncar54]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/13/ebola-nurse-pauline-cafferkey-faces-disciplinary-hearing/


It would appear that although she put many others in danger, she had Ebola when the wrong temperature reading was entered, but she apparently did nothing wrong according to the regulatory body, (Probably like the Law Society, House Builders Association etc. all comprised of members of their profession. Very unlike, the Independent Police Complaints Commission who investigate police officers).

Sounds rather like a drunk driver being acquitted because he was lucky not to have had an accident and killed someone. And even luckier in that he was then tried by a jury who drive whilst drunk too

[Arthur Little]

:poke: ... I for one am very pleased to learn that she has [rightly] been cleared of misconduct and will be allowed to continue with her sterling work in her home county of Lanarkshire. :xxgrinning--00xx3:

[Michael Parnham]

:poke: ... I for one am very pleased to learn that she has [rightly] been cleared of misconduct and will be allowed to continue with her sterling work in her home county of Lanarkshire. :xxgrinning--00xx3:

I'll go with that Arthur, pleasing news indeed.:xxgrinning--00xx3:

[Steve.r]

Rightly acquitted

[Doc Alan]

Both the NMC ( Nursing & Midwifery Council (https://www.nmc.org.uk/) ) and GMC ( General Medical Council (http://www.gmc-uk.org/) ) may be / and ARE criticised ( among others ) for long delays in reaching decisions, and being " machines for transferring money from nurses / doctors to lawyers under the guise of protecting patients. "


However, their committees dealing with serious allegations such as misconduct, lack of competence, or other possible impaired fitness to practice, are NOT composed solely of nurses or doctors.



Each includes " lay members " ( appointed from outside the professions ). For the GMC there is a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (http://www.mpts-uk.org/). For the NMC the Conduct and Competence Committee (https://www.nmc.org.uk/globalassets/sitedocuments/ftp_information/ftp_committees/conduct-and-competence-committee-information.pdf), which also has a legal assessor, secretary, and others. Members of the public and press may usually attend. Nurse Cafferkey was entitled to, and had, her own lawyer.



Speaking through her lawyer, she said that she hoped lessons would be learned after the hearing in Edinburgh exposed " serious deficiencies in Public Health England’s screening process at Heathrow … " and " it is perhaps ironic that given the criticisms of PHE’s processes, it was their complaint that led to the NMC investigation and these proceedings being initiated against Pauline."


Hopefully she will now be able to continue her nursing career in Scotland without further ill health.

[Steve.r]

Thanks Alan. At least it does highlight the deficiencies in real time screening and maybe it had to take this case to bring it to the greater attention.

I hope that this courageous nurse can regain her previous status or respect now.

[Trefor]

She's a nurse, I suspect she suspected she was infected but knew she would more likely live if she got back into the UK. Maybe she only felt ill on the flight home but I bet she knew. However, who can blame her?, who would have done anything different? She probably took as many precautions as possible. Poor lady, trying to help others and then getting bad press when every single one of the journalists would have done the same.

[stevewool]

All's well that end's well, think on England could have been like the TV series Walking dead, hang about if you look around it looks like that now

[johncar54]

She's a nurse, I suspect she suspected she was infected but knew she would more likely live if she got back into the UK. Maybe she only felt ill on the flight home but I bet she knew. However, who can blame her?, who would have done anything different?

As I said, like a drunken driver knowing they are drunk but taking a chance. That the driver is a great guy doing all sorts of voluntary works, donating blood, a kidney etc, would not excuse him.

Jimmy Savile did a lot of good , and raised thousands for charity, had he not died he would rightly be in prison.

Poor lady, trying to help others and then getting bad press when every single one of the journalists would have done the same.

Even if they would, and I doubt it, they are not responsible medically trained people as are nurses, doctors etc.

I am sure no doctor would have done as she appears to have done. (I say, appears, but if there was no evidence of wrong doing she would not have appeared before the committee)

As a nurse, who worked with Ebola, and knew first hand better than anyone the real risks of infecting others, and the high chance that they might then die, taking any risk was almost unbelievable and is indefensible.

I am sorry but I cannot excuse her behaviour.

[Steve.r]

All's well that end's well, think on England could have been like the TV series Walking dead, hang about if you look around it looks like that now

I know what you mean Steve

http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg188/Discusboy123/image_zpsgzfqkwft.jpeg

[Steve.r]

As I said, like a drunken driver knowing they are drunk but taking a chance. That the driver is a great guy doing all sorts of voluntary works, donating blood, a kidney etc, would not excuse him.

Jimmy Savile did a lot of good , and raised thousands for charity, had he not died he would rightly be in prison.

Poor lady, trying to help others and then getting bad press when every single one of the journalists would have done the same.

Even if they would, and I doubt it, they are not responsible medically trained people as are nurses, doctors etc.

I am sure no doctor would have done as she appears to have done. (I say, appears, but if there was no evidence of wrong doing she would not have appeared before the committee)

As a nurse, who worked with Ebola, and knew first hand better than anyone the real risks of infecting others, and the high chance that they might then die, taking any risk was almost unbelievable and is indefensible.

I am sorry but I cannot excuse her behaviour.
You have no real right to challenge the outcome of the trial. She has been acquitted. Why do you feel the need to carry on the witch hunt against her? I just don't understand some peoples mentality sometimes.

[johncar54]

You have no real right to challenge the outcome of the trial. She has been acquitted. Why do you feel the need to carry on the witch hunt against her? I just don't understand some peoples mentality sometimes.


Doc Alan quote:
When this nurse returned from Sierra Leone in December 2014, with many other NHS volunteers, there was a screening procedure at Heathrow whereby Public Health England ( PHE ) had nurses to take the temperatures of the travellers. It appears that there weren’t sufficient screening staff, so PHE encouraged volunteers to take their own temperatures. This nurse’s temperature was high, and was taken several more times, but she is alleged to have taken paracetamol ( which would lower her temperature ) and was eventually told she could board her flight to Glasgow. The allegations of concealing high temperature may be false - but, even if true, this could be misjudgement made under stress.


The nurse had Ebola of that there is no doubt. As a nurse she would have known she had a temperature. She must have known she might be infected. She took medication to lower it to get around the regulations so she would be allowed to fly. As Doc Alan said, ".... this could be misjudgement made under stress."

Had she infected thousands or people or even one person, I do not think anyone would be jumping to her defence.

She did wrong but was lucky (twice) and so were the public.

Because people did not believe the findings when the police investigated themselves was why we now righty have an the Independent Police Complaints Commission. In-house committees are notorious for protecting their own.

[Steve.r]

And the verdict is still "acquitted"

[stevewool]

I know what you mean Steve

http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg188/Discusboy123/image_zpsgzfqkwft.jpeg

That's what happens when I used your toothbrush and some of you bodily fluids was still on it, or was it when we shared that last bottle of coke :biggrin:

[Doc Alan]

And the verdict is still "acquitted"


We're all entitled to our opinions. The majority of the public, and Forum members including me, agree with the verdict. I stand by my two posts #7 and #13, and recommend the links given there. There is also my previous Ebola thread (http://filipinaroses.com/showthread.php/53405-Ebola-Virus).


Both NMC and GMC panels dealing with allegations about nurses and doctors are inevitably " in house " for expert knowledge on the clinical issues involved - but also include members of the general public. Anyone who feels they could usefully contribute may apply.


While I have nothing further to add on this case, we are still learning more about Ebola virus infection (http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/langlo/PIIS2214-109X(16)30147-4.pdf), how to prevent and treat it.

[Arthur Little]

I am sorry but I cannot excuse her behaviour.

:please: ... try looking at this woman's case from a humanitarian point of view - rather than from either a "dyed in the wool" policeman's and/or judicial perspective - John. You might even surprise yourself!

See my [separate] thread: 'WHY it's IMPORTANT to *consider the BIGGER picture'.

http://filipinaroses.com/showthread.php/59812-Watch-Closely-And-You-ll-see

Ok ... :anerikke: ... different topic, but the *same principle applies.

[johncar54]

:please: ... try looking at this woman's case from a humanitarian point of view - rather than from either a "dyed in the wool" policeman's and/or judicial perspective - John. You might even surprise yourself!

See my [separate] thread: 'WHY it's IMPORTANT to *consider the BIGGER picture'.

http://filipinaroses.com/showthread.php/59812-Watch-Closely-And-You-ll-see

Ok ... :anerikke: ... different topic, but the *same principle applies.

Arthur try looking at the facts and not the person.

Had that person been say a paedophile, bank robber, rapist etc. I guess you would think differently.

Thinking as a detective would usually mean looking at the fact and making a decision based solely on them.

In many cases a detective will feel sympathy for the culprit but not let that blind them from the facts.

As a police officer I quite often spoke up to give information to a court which went to the favour of a defendant, when the defence had failed to do so. That assisted the court to pass the correct sentence in the circumstances. The nurse's previous good character would be something the committee would need to consider, in imposing a punishment not in deciding if what she did, when she showed an incorrect temperature reading, was wrong.

As for the nurse being acquitted, it was not a criminal court so ‘acquittal’ has no significance here.

(And sorry Arthur but "See my [separate] thread: 'WHY it's IMPORTANT to *consider the BIGGER picture'." If I understood that as you meant it, you have lost the plot.)

[Steve.r]

Arthur try looking at the facts
The only fact is that she was found not guilty.

[johncar54]

The only fact is that she was found not guilty.

No she was not. That can only happen in a criminal court. She appeared before the
Conduct and Competence Panel of the Nursing and Midwifery Council.

[URL="http:/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-37364497"] The conduct and competence panel dismissed the charges after hearing she had been impaired by illness.

That means, whilst they believed she did what was alleged, the facts mitigated her actions, i.e. that because her judgement was 'impaired by illness' she had Ebola, she was given the benefit of doubt in that she may not have 'intended to break the rules.'

And just for clarity. Even in a criminal case if the jury return a verdict of 'not guilty' that does not mean they are satisfied the person did not commit the crime, only that they cannot be satisfied 'beyond all reasonable doubt that they did'. Thus no one is ever 'proved to be innocent.' Although in English one is presumed to innocent until proved guilty.

Sorry to appear pedantic, but those without legal training, often do not understand that is the UK law.

So good luck to the nurse.

[Arthur Little]

:omg: ... seems there's no end to this brave woman's misfortunes:

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ebola-nurse-pauline-cafferkey-rushed-8989043

[Steve.r]

That would be good if the news story actually focussed on what was wrong with her now.

[Arthur Little]

That would be good if the news story actually focussed on what was wrong with her now.

:yeahthat:'s also my line of thinking too, Steve. Try this link from the Daily Mail ... which has the added advantage of obviating the necessity for readers refreshing their pages afterwards.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3824908/Nurse-Pauline-Cafferkey-twice-battled-Ebola-rushed-hospital-police-escort.html

Although there haven't been any specific details released as to her current condition, a statement issued by a spokesperson for Greater Glasgow & Clyde Health Board suggests she was being recalled for "routine monitoring" at the behest of the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital's specialist 'infectious diseases team'.