Under the Whistleblowing Standards the aim is to respond to Stage 2 concerns fully within 20 working days. Our experience to date is that investigations take longer than this to concluded.
To help you recognise what to expect during the investigation of your concerns we have defined the key steps in the investigation process.
Following feedback from our confidential contacts and those who have used the process we have created an FAQ document.
Steps in a Stage 2 Investigation
What happens once a stage 2 concern has been logged on Datix?
When a Stage 2 Whistleblowing concern has been logged in the Datix Whistleblowing module, it will be reviewed by the Whistleblowing Programme and Liaison Manager and the Executive Lead for Whistleblowing to determine if the concerns meet the definition and scope within The Standards. Sometimes additional information may be sought from the whistleblower(s) to help with this assessment. This may include the offer to meet with a senior manager with experience in dealing with whistleblowing concerns. Please be assured this approach will be confirmed with the whistleblower(s), and only after confirmation will any personal details or details of the concern be shared.
If the concerns are not deemed to fall within the scope of the standards the whistleblower(s) will be signposted to other relevant policies and processes.
Once it is determined that the concerns raised met the definition of whistleblowing the whistleblower(s) will receive acknowledgement that an investigation will be Commissioned, they will also be provided with details of who will be investigating the concerns and asked to confirm they are content with their identity being shared with the investigators.
Throughout the process confirmation will always be sought from the whistleblower(s) before their identity is shared with others and the reason why this is necessary.
What are the key steps in a whistleblowing investigation?
Step 1: Discussing and agreeing the ‘heads of concern’
The first step in any investigation is for the investigators to meet with the whistleblower(s) to discuss the concerns and agree the scope of the investigation. This may involve more than one discussion and the output of this stage will be a written and agreed ‘heads of concern’ between the whistleblower(s) and the investigators. This ensures clarity on the scope of the investigation from the start.
Step 2: Planning the investigation
The investigators will need time to think about, plan and prepare for the investigation e.g., what information do they need to see and consider, what witnesses or individuals do they need to meet with to ascertain the facts. As the investigation progresses the investigators may determine that they require additional information and/or need to meet with more witnesses.
Step 3: Active investigation
During this phase the investigators will be gathering and considering information they consider to be relevant and interviewing key individuals/witnesses to assist with their investigation. Witness meetings require to be written up and agreed therefore this can take a few weeks/months depending on the number of witnesses. Availability due to leave commitments also has to be factored in and can impact on the timescales for investigations.
During Stages 2, 3, 4 and 5 the whistleblower(s) will be updated every 20 working days with progress with the investigation. These updates may be short and may only be able to provide the whistleblower(s) with reassurance that the investigation is progressing. As much information on the progress and where applicable timescales for completion will be shared.
Step 4: Writing the outcome report
Following interviews and gathering of evidence and information to inform the investigation the investigators must take time to consider what they have heard and seen. This must they be developed into an outcome report which sets out key facts and information, findings and recommendations for improvement/action. Investigators must also conclude if the concerns set out in the ‘heads of concern’ have been upheld/not upheld or partially upheld and clearly document why.
Step 5: Submission and sign off on the outcome report
The investigation outcome report is then submitted to the investigation Commissioner for sign off. Sometimes the Commissioner may have questions on aspects of the report and seek further clarity from the investigators. This is principally to ensure that the feedback to whistleblower(s) is clear, concise and demonstrates that their concerns have been followed up and can be responded to with clear and measurable actions where appropriate.
Step 6: Written feedback to the Whistleblower
The investigation Commissioner will write to the whistleblower(s) to confirm if their concerns have been upheld/not upheld or partially upheld and why. It will have been agreed beforehand that the whistleblower(s) is content to have their identity shared with the Commissioner.
The Commissioner will also advise how the whistleblower(s) will be updated and if appropriate involved in any improvement actions coming out of the investigation.
Transparency does not mean sharing every single detail, it is however important that we provide the context for the decisions that we make. Sometimes if findings and actions relate to a named individual it may not be appropriate to share specific details as we are required to follow the principles of good information governance and confidentiality.
