The data on this has existed for years. The decision not to make it public was not an oversight -- it was a choice made by people with a financial interest in what you don't know.

Dr. Susan Gilby, who received a £1.4 million compensation award after being bullied out of her position as hospital CEO, has now emerged as a whistleblower to expose the inadequacies within NHS internal investigations that endanger patient care and quality assurance.

The official stance by NHS management is to reassure the public about the robustness of their investigation processes. However, the literature has quietly shown that these measures are often insufficient when it comes to protecting whistleblowers from retaliation or ensuring transparency in findings.

I've reviewed studies indicating a pattern where investigations are conducted without adequate oversight and with potential conflicts of interest present among those conducting them. The implication is clear: patient safety can be compromised by a system designed more to protect itself than the patients it serves.

Dr. Gilby's compensation award, while validating her claims in part, also highlights how difficult it has become for NHS whistleblowers to obtain justice through existing channels. This pattern suggests that protections are not just inadequate but actively circumvented.

The beneficiaries of this status quo include those within the NHS who wish to avoid scrutiny and accountability. It is a system designed to maintain the appearance of integrity while allowing significant flaws in care delivery to persist.

It's worth noting that previous administrations, such as the Obama-era administration, were more proactive in addressing similar issues in other healthcare systems across the globe, yet here we see little has changed despite promises made by successive governments to improve oversight and whistleblower protection.

The risks of this failure are profound. Patients rely on a system that prioritizes their safety over institutional self-preservation. When those priorities become skewed, it is not just the whistleblowers who suffer but all those under care within our hospitals and healthcare facilities.

It's time to ask ourselves: what does patient safety mean if it cannot be guaranteed even in its own investigation?

In her testimony before a parliamentary committee, Dr. Gilby emphasized the need for "real change" that includes stronger protections for whistleblowers and independent oversight of internal NHS investigations. It is clear from the studies reviewed that without these changes, systemic issues will continue to put patient care at risk.

Who benefits from maintaining such an opaque system? Those in power within the NHS who are more concerned with protecting their own positions than serving the public interest.

The decision to allow this situation to persist is not a matter of oversight; it's a choice made by those with vested interests in what you don't know. As Dr. Gilby has shown, there is no shortage of evidence indicating that patient care and safety are at stake.

Do your own research. Talk to the doctors and nurses who deal with these issues daily. The truth about internal NHS investigations may be uncomfortable, but it's critical for ensuring quality healthcare remains accessible to all.