Category: Latest News

28 March 2020

The last few weeks have been unparalleled with a worldwide public health emergency due to the outbreak of the Coronavirus (Covid-19) affecting people in South Africa and thousands across the globe in various countries.

The Office of Health Standards Compliance (OHSC) noted with appreciation the announcement by the Honourable President, Mr Cyril Ramaphosa that South Africa should observe a nationwide lockdown for 21-days with effect from midnight on Thursday, 26 March 2020 as part of efforts to curb the rapid transmission of the Coronavirus (Covid-19) and flatten the curve in the country.

The OHSC noted with great sadness the passing of a patient who succumbed to Covid-19 in the Western Cape. The constant increase in Covid-19 cases, confirmed by the Minister of Health in South Africa is of great concern. The OHSC acknowledges efforts by the National Department of Health (NDoH), the various South African Government Departments, the National Institute for Communicable Diseases (NICD) and many other role players in the public and private health sector to provide measures to prevent the spread of the virus in South Africa.

The World Health Organization (WHO) called on Governments to increase the manufacturing of personal protective equipment such as protective surgical gear ,masks and N95 respirators to curb the spread of Covid-19 in South Africa and other countries.

The OHSC as the regulator in health has a responsibility to protect and promote the health and safety of users of health services, both in the public and private health establishments in South Africa.

Whilst Covid-19 is recognised as a public health emergency, the OHSC calls on the public and private health establishments to employ all measures to minimise at all cost the risk of spread of Covid-19 to those in the coalface of managing the virus by providing all healthcare workers, laboratory personnel, support personnel and identified patients with personal protective equipment in all health establishments in South Africa. The country cannot afford to lose any healthcare workers, laboratory personnel or any other personnel involved in the management of the disease. These selfless members of society should be protected from contracting the disease.

The OHSC extends support and gratitude to healthcare workers and all personnel currently engaged in efforts to fight Covid-19.

The South African public is urged to observe the call to stay at home to protect themselves and those around during the lockdown period and adhere to preventive measures.

For more information contact: Ricardo Mahlakanya: Mobile. 066 473 8666, and Email. rmahlakanya@ohsc.org.za

8 February 2020

The OHSC together with the Office of Military Ombud (OMO) and Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) embark on a series of community outreach events in Lephalale Local Municipality. The purpose of engagements is to educate members of the community about the services of the OHSC, OMO and HPCSA:

Venue	Date	Time
Marapong Community Hall	11 February 2020	10:00-12:00
Ga-Seleka Community Hall	11 February 2020	14:00-16:00
Witpoort Community Hall	12 February 2020	10:00-12:00
Lamplaas Community Hall	12 February 2020	14:00-16:00
Abbotspoort Community Hall	13 February 2020	10:00-12:00
Ga-Monyeki Community Hall	13 February 2020	14:00 – 16:00

For more information contact: Ricardo Mahlakanya: Mobile. 066 473 8666, and Email. rmahlakanya@ohsc.org.za

12 July 2019

The Health Ombud, Prof Malegapuru Makgoba welcomes the implementation of the National Health Insurance (NHI) Bill as this important step is long overdue.

‘The provision of universal quality healthcare is a ground-breaking step in the delivery of the National Health System in South Africa. We should all learn from the implementation process to improve the NHI Bill,’ said Prof Makgoba.

The Health Ombud will work together with all role players for successful realisation of the NHI.

For more information contact: Ricardo Mahlakanya: Mobile. 066 473 8666, and Email. rmahlakanya@ohsc.org.za

23 August 2018

Minister of Health, Dr. Aaron Motsoaledi

Deputy Minister of Health, Dr. Joe Phaahla

Director-General of the Department of Health, Ms. Malebona Matsoso

Hon MA Dunjwa, Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Health

Members of the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Mental Health

OHSC Board Members

OHSC Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Siphiwe Mndaweni

Senior managers

Members of the media

Distinguished Guests, Ladies and gentlemen

INTRODUCTION:

1. William Osler- When Osler made this statement below, the importance of the art of medicine was high; the biological revolution of monoclonal antibodies, DNA and the internet were not yet games in town, and the importance and rising influence of science on the understanding of disease and practice of medicine has since grown in leaps and bounds.

There are only two sorts of doctors: those that practice with their brains, and those that practice with their tongues.

2. Medicine and science are interdependent and both are anchored and governed by the search for the truth and the practice of ethics to advance and improve humankind and the human condition.

3. Modern medicine and science are very important in the wellbeing of nations; they are the cornerstones for economic development; they are necessary for vibrant and successful democracies; they are important for national reputation and the comparisons of nations globally. The integrity and quality of any National Health System in an internet-connected world is thus critical for the life of a nation particularly its education. That is partly why society places such trust, high prize and pride in health professionals and scientists. We are the trusted seekers of the truth, the brains trust of the nation.

4. The integrated integrity of the practice of science with the art of the practice of medicine, the ethics underlying both and the truth have guided my report. Embedded in every finding runs the blood of science and its ethics.

5.  In preparing the report on an investigation into allegations of patient mismanagement and patient rights violations at the Tower Psychiatric Hospital and Psychosocial Rehabilitation Centre, I tried very hard to ensure that every word has a place and meaning but that reading the report would be enjoyable. I was acutely aware of the complex, diverse and active compatriots for whom this Report was addressed to (Active Citizenry in National Development Plan speak). So, I went over 40 drafts of the Report before this final one. If I did not succeed fully, it is not for lack of trying.

6.  The interim draft Report was circulated and shared with those concerned at the Eastern Cape Department of Health (ECDoH), Tower Psychiatric Hospital and Psychosocial Rehabilitation Centre (TPHPRC), Eastern Cape Technical Task Team (EC TTT), Dr Kiran Sukeri and the OHSC investigators for their inputs, comments, corrections and critique. I am grateful for these inputs. Some statements were revisited with witnesses for verification and confirmation and these were incorporated following their comments to produce the final Report. This important process has strengthened the Report.

7.  Since Suzanne Venter of the Rapport newspaper broke the TPHPRC story on 4th March 2018, there has been a lot of noise almost of orchestra proportion. The nation has been baffled or bewildered, at times shocked and many innocent people left in pain and with shattered reputations, particularly so soon after the Life Esidimeni tragedy.

8. For those who listen to or follow Jazz, the legendary Miles Davis once remarked: In playing with an orchestra, it may be simpler or better still to play above rather than against the orchestra. You are likely to be heard playing above rather than against as the orchestra noise will simply drown you. This is my paraphrase and interpretation of the legendary trumpeter. A lot of noise has been playing since the 4th March 2018 in the media with articles and documentaries.

9.  Hopefully trough this Report one can play above the noise of the orchestra and be heard without disappearing into the clouds or without being drowned.

10. Hopefully, the Report provides a balance and a melody to the noise you have all heard so far.

THEMES THAT EMERGED:

There are four themes that emerged out of the investigation, evidence, analysis and consolidation.

1.  The Complaint itself

a)  The complaint was very important and unique for the ECDoH;

b)  This was the first complaint lodged by a senior health professional consultant psychiatrist against his employer, TPHPRC and ECDoH;

c)  The complaint was described as coy and complex. Coy meaning subtle and at times evasive.

d)  Dr Sukeri made the following telling statements:

• He had been fighting for 12 years, this is certainly much longer than his 2-years employment at TPHPRC;
• His recommendations for a solution forwarded during the interview with the Ombud were directed to the system and the ECDoH rather than at TPHPRC;
• He admitted he lost his cool, went to the media and exaggerated his complaint;
• He did not care; quite inimical to a profession of caring;
• He was aware he violated his professional and contractual obligations but no longer cared;
• Dr Sukeri’s complaint was supported by Dr Mo Nagdee’s email to Mr B Nzima (Annexure 1c), which pointed out to deeper, chronic and systemic failures of Mental Health Services within the ECDoH and widespread unhappiness amongst professional staff within the ECDoH;
• Dr Sukeri’s complaint was also supported by evidence from Mr Wilson of the Public Servants Association of South Africa (PSA) and others which points to prolonged failures by the ECDoH to attend to complaints raised by staff since 2007; and
• There was very little evidence of systemic institutionalised human rights violations as compared to a few isolated incidents of professional misconduct.

2. The Eastern Cape Health Department

a.  Almost every witness conceded that Mental Health and its services were not a high priority within the ECDoH.

b.  The ECDoH was the cause of all the woes with Mental Health Care Services.

c.  The ECDoH failed to guide and support TPHPRC.

d.  It has a long history of failing to implement or action plans supported by well-researched studies.

3.  TPHPRC and the Ms NE Ngcume

a.  The management was in total disarray and engaged in power struggles.

4.  The Complainant Dr Kiran Sukeri | MBChB, FCPsych (SA), PhD | ResearchGate. (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kiran_Sukeri)

a.  Nothing was recorded for his h-index;

b.  He released unverified, false, exaggerated and damaging death statistics into the public;

c.  He violated his professional oaths and his employer’s confidentiality contractual clauses;

d. No amount of anger or frustration could be an excuse for a senior professional to behave this way and violate his professional and contractual oaths, ethics and codes of practice;

e.  Everybody disagreed totally with the manner and ways in which Dr Sukeri raised the complaint; and

f.  He irretrievably broke trust and the confidence of his colleagues.

A.  SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS, DETAILS p15-57:

1.  No prima facie evidence of institutionalised, systematic or deliberate violations of Human Rights by staff at Tower Psychiatric Hospital and Psychosocial Rehabilitation Centre was found.

a. As South Africans, we are not a nation of Human Rights violators. In a 124-year-old, 400-bedded chronic mental health institution and Rehabilitation Centre (TPHPRC), at Fort Beaufort, the Health Ombud could only identify and confirm one unquestionable instance of Human Rights violation, following a detailed and systematic evidence-based analysis of Dr. Sukeri’s complaint.

b. This violation was agreed by all stakeholders and all witnesses interviewed. There was thus no prima facie evidence of systematic, deliberate or systemic Human Rights violations found nor was there evidence found of a culture or intent to violate Human Rights by staff at TPHPRC.

c.  There were no other degrading and inhumane treatments observed or found as alleged by Dr Sukeri. This finding was corroborated by evidence from the Office of Health Standards Compliance (OHSC) investigators, the Mental Health Review Board (MHRB) Central Region, the Eastern Cape Technical Task Team (EC TTT) and evidence from research and the 34 witnesses interviewed by the Ombud.

d. Dr Sukeri’s coy complaint was primarily about chronic systemic failures and neglect of the ECDoH on Mental Health Care Services (MHCS) with pernicious systemic effects and the power struggles for change. It was not about Human Rights violations primarily as initially alleged and peddled in the media.

2.  Scientific Misconduct Committed

a.  Dr Sukeri failed to conduct credible studies, research or audits with rigorous verification of the information, data or figures available before making false and damaging pronouncements to the public through the media. This was a grave error.

b. Over an 8-year period, 68 MCHUs had died at TPHPRC and not the falsified and exaggerated total of 90 deaths as reported in the media with Dr Sukeri’s collaboration.

c. These total deaths translated into approximately 8.5 deaths/year or 0.71 deaths/month in a 400-bedded hospital. Therefore, the notion by Dr Sukeri that an alarming number of patient deaths at the hospital in recent years had gone unrecorded and without proper research and evidence must be regarded as false, untrue and must be eschewed.

d.  For Dr Sukeri to release such shoddy, poorly-researched, falsified and exaggerated patient’s vital statistical information into the public via the media, amounted to scientific misconduct or fraud a cardinal sin in science.

e. He had told Dr Snombo he was conducting research and had found a goldmine while discussing the Death Register.

f.  He was in Violation of Generally Accepted Research Practices that included an improper reporting of results to present a misleading outcome and the Falsification of Data, rather than manipulate the experiments or the data to generate preferred results, this transgression simply fabricates the data entirely (https://www.enago.com/academy/10-types-of-scientific-misconduct/).

g.  From this low averaged total death estimate of 0.71 deaths/month and an overall performance score of 89% in the National Core Standards assessment, it must be safe to conclude that TPHPRC would rank and compare favourably with the best health establishments of its kind (Weskoppies and Sterkfontein in the country) in the world and must be regarded as such (Khamker N et al 2010 and Walker et al 2013).

3. The False Life Esidimeni copy-cat phenomenon comparison

a.  Dr Sukeri’s complaint was depicted and portrayed in the media as another Life Esidimeni saga, even by Dr Sukeri as alleged in certain sections of the media such the Rapport, City Press and the eNCA TV programme, Checkpoint. The reported death of 90 MHCUs became etched in the public’s mind, reinforced by the reported statement by Dr. Sukeri saying the government did not seem to have learnt any lessons from Esidimeni and another documentary flighted as The next Life Esidimeni to air on eNCA by Health-e-News and Grocott Mail, 11th June 2018, all taken together, created this copy-cat phenomenon comparison. Dr Sukeri would have been fully aware at this time of the final total of 144 deaths recorded at Life Esidimeni over a period of one year during the Marathon Project(Robertson & Makgoba 2018).

b.  This Life Esidimeni comparison has had the effect of:

• Creating a national mass hysteria and shame so soon after the harrowing experience suffered through the Life Esidimeni tragedy. The media hype and Life Esidimeni copy-cat phenomenon or bandwagon comparison have blown the complaint out of proportion to reality. This media hype created a mountain out of a molehill. However, this comparison has no factual basis (see below).
• Another effect of this misrepresentation was to create an expectation in the local public that this complaint will lead to financial rewards just like what happened in Life Esidimeni, with some even dubbing Dr Sukeri’s complaint as Life Esidimeni R1.2m, (Adv Maxakato 2018). One point two million (R1.2m) was in reference to the average award given to each relative/family member of the Life Esidimeni tragedy, by former Deputy Justice Dikgang Moseneke premier/Pages/Life-Esidimeni.aspx).
• It was established and confirmed by all concerned (Dr. Sukeri, the complainant, the OHSC investigators (Ms. HM Phetoane and Ms. JT Monyela), Ms. NE Ngcume, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), TPHPRC, Prof. Z Zingela, Chairperson of the EC Technical Task Team and confirmed by the Health Ombud) that a total of 68 patients died at TPHPRC over an 8-year period.
• This must be compared with a final total of 144 deaths recorded at Life Esidimeni over a period of one year during the Marathon Project Robertson & Makgoba 2018).
• It was this total death figure of 90 that led to the false comparison conferatur 94+ Life Esidimeni Deaths on 1st February 2017.

c. There was thus a 17x fold increase of deaths at Life Esidimeni compared to deaths at TPHPRC (12/0.71).

d.  There was no link between the 68 deaths with the alleged Human Rights violations, unlike the 144 deaths in Life Esidimeni.

e.  The Life Esidimeni tragedy was a once-in-lifetime event with no precedent recorded in the history of medicine and has thus become a landmark case study for quality healthcare, health professionals, politicians, lawyers, ethicists, actuaries and constitutional lawyers and the TPHPRC story is hardly ever likely to reach this status.

f. The scale/extend and degree of Human Rights violations at TPHPRC were very few, isolated and secondary and not comparable to the litany of Human Rights violations found and catalogued for Life Esidimeni (supported by medical, forensic and post mortem evidence), which were primary as detailed in the Ombud’s Report (Makgoba MW, 2018, www.ohsc.org.za), elaborated and aired during the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) testimonies (published in full in Timeslive 20th March 2018) and  (http://www.gauteng.gov.za/government/departments/office-of-the-premier/Pages/Life-Esidimeni.aspx).

g.  Therefore, to compare and label Dr Sukeri’s complaint at TPHPRC as another Life Esidimeni in scale/magnitude or any dimension was both misleading and false.

 

h.  Despite Dr. Sukeri admitting under oath that he was wrong in this comparison and having made the corrections and admission of statistical miscalculations to the Ombud, followed by a written apology to the National Health Minister, Dr. Aaron Motsoaledi and copied to the Health Ombud on this grave error, the reputational damage to the country was done; he has yet to succeed in correcting these in the media and the public mind.

i.  This Life Esidimeni comparison was not only factually inaccurate and far from the truth, but also ill-informed, poorly researched, unscientific, false, exaggerated and based on inaccurate statistics. This incidence at TPHPRC was no Life Esidimeni.

j.  Dr Sukeri has conceded under oath the following:

• He conceded to miscalculating his death statistics, he called this a serious mistake;
• His death statistics were wrong; to this end, he has apologised in writing to the National Health Minister and the Health Ombud;
• Dr Sukeri acknowledged he should not have gone to the press;
• Some of his statements in the letter of complaints were based on opinions with no substantiation, credible research or proper scientific basis;
• He misrepresented the dates of informing the Health Ombud and has since apologised for this also in writing;
• Dr Sukeri was the primary source of and at times a collaborator of the articles and the documentaries on this matter; and
• Now that he has admitted under oath and apologised in writing and all the evidence proved that the basis of this comparison was false and untrue, logically all articles and documentaries based on this must be declared wrong, null and void.

k.  It is, therefore, my appeal that the media that participated in peddling these falsities (The Rapport, City Press, The Daily Dispatch, Grocott’s Mail, eNCA Checkpoint and others) should consider withdrawing these articles and documentaries and joining Dr.’s Sukeri in tendering a public apology. It cannot be accepted and be ethical in a Constitutional Democracy and a knowledge society that the public is informed and educated on proven and acknowledged wrong scientific facts. We cannot create a successful non-racial, non-sexist and equitable society on the basis of lies and untruths.

4. Patient’s Confidentiality and Dignity: A Violation of the Cardinal Rule of Medical Practice

a)Trust is an essential part of the doctor-patient relationship and confidentiality is central to this. Patients may avoid seeking medical help, or may under-report symptoms, if they think their personal information will be disclosed by doctors without consent, or without the chance to have some control over the timing or amount of information shared.

b) Doctors are under both ethical and legal duties to protect the patient’s personal information from improper disclosure. But appropriate information sharing is an essential part of the provision of safe and effective care. Patients may be put at risk if those who are providing their care do not have access to relevant, accurate and up-to-date information about them (https://www.gmcuk.org/Confidentiality_good_practice_in_handling_patient_informatio…).

c) Dr Sukeri violated his professional codes of practice and ethics and breached his confidentiality contractual obligations with his employer, TPHPRC and the ECDoH. By sharing the death register (with personal patient’s information) with the Rapport newspaper and subsequently on public national television (TV) with eNCA’s Checkpoint reporters, Dr Sukeri violated one of the cardinal rules of the health professions practice, which is confidentiality. This violation was in breach of the National Health Act.

d)  By violating the patient’s confidentiality, he violated the patient’s dignity. Dr Sukeri acted in the most unprofessional way for a senior health professional, in a noble profession steeped in centuries of values, traditions, ethics and codes of conduct to advance and improve human life, protect and do no harm to humankind; he simply and consciously ignored all these. He has so far shown very little remorse for his actions, and he lied under oath.

5. Discharge of MHCUs without authorisation

a.  In the progress report provided by Dr TD Mbengashe, the SG on 21st August 2018 to the Health Ombud, following the recommendations of the EC TTT and the findings of the OHSC investigators showed that Dr Sukeri had indeed discharged patients without proper authorisation and ensuring social circumstances of the users. This item in the original Report is item 4.15.1 on page 48. This version represented an update.

b.  Follow up of the users discharged revealed the following:

• Out of a total of 142 discharges, Dr Sukeri had discharged 51 or 35.92%;
• 141 of the discharges have been traced and found;
• All 51 discharges of Dr Sukeri have been traced and found;
• A process is underway to locate in collaboration with the community to locate the 1 outstanding MHCU;
• Dr Sukeri’s 11 discharged users were not coping well in the community, some with relapses and re-admissions; 1 user was reported missing; 2 users passed away;
• One (1) user committed suicide and 1 user committed murder and was imprisoned;
• That some MHCUs have been re-admitted, 1 committed suicide, 1 committed murder and others are not coping well in the community as so far found, questioned the quality of assessment undertaken, the clinical judgements/decisions made and the competence of Dr Sukeri; and
• This was a gross violation of the MHCA, the HPCSA Codes of Practice and in defiance of the CEO and the ECDoH policy. It is also inimical to the concept of caring.

6.  Irretrievable breakdown and loss of trust and confidence

a.  Dr Sukeri has irretrievably lost the trust and confidence of the TPHPRC Board, the Mental Health Review Board (Central Region), Dr. TD Mbengashe, the Superintendent-General, Dr. PP Dyantyi the former Health MEC, the Management team at TPHPRC (Ms. NE Ngcume, Dr. Snombo and Mr. Baart) and other colleagues at TPHPRC and other officials within the ECDoH; his complaint has had the effect of dividing the psychiatric professionals in the South African Society of Psychiatrists (SASOP) National versus the SASOP EC and between members of SASOP within the EC. Ka Sepedi Ba re O nyetÅ¡e sediba meaning he pooed into his water well and in Japanese, he committed a Hara-kiri, Seppuku or Kamikaze. He has irretrievably destroyed trust and confidence across a range of stakeholders by the manner in which he went about his complaint. He disregarded all possible and available processes to him.

b.  Dr Sukeri claimed in some of his media quotes in City Press newspaper (04-03-2018) that: I know what I’m going to tell you will jeopardise my safety, as well as that of my family, but I don’t care. Those patients urgently need to be helped. He was aware that he had not followed due processes; He did not care anymore as he could no longer keep quiet or remain silent about these inhumane conditions; He showed Rapport newspaper copies of the lost register indicating at least 90 patients at the institution since 2010 and four patients died in January alone. We’ve been struggling with the same kind of problems in the Eastern Cape for years. I’ve been fighting for the rights of psychiatric patients for 12 years, said a tearful Dr Sukeri to the Rapport newspaper.

7. Brought professional and national disrepute

a. Dr Sukeri’s complaint whilst important for Mental Health Care Services in the EC, it is equally injurious to the health professions reputation, integrity and the quality of the health system and its professionals.

b.  Consequently, Dr. Sukeri has single-handedly brought disrepute to our country, its health system and its health profession and professionals at enormous human and financial costs by the manner of his actions; the processes he chose to articulate his complaint; surely this conduct and consequences thereof calls for something at the highest level to be done i.e. when a nation or society can no longer or loses trust its brain trust, something profoundly faulty has taken place.

8. ECDoH: A department with a track record of successful failures

a. Available evidence gathered and corroborated by several independent research reports showed that ECDoH:

• failed to prioritise mental health services over a long period;
• has a long history of failures to implement policies as documented in the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) & Section 27 2013 investigation Report, Dr. Sukeri 2014 (3 articles referenced), the Ministerial Task Team Report (MTTR) following the Life Esidimeni tragedy (May 2017), Dr. Mo Nagdee’s email February 2018 & OHSC investigators 2018 Report);
• the above long history demonstrated the ECDoH was incapable of recovering or correcting by itself and without the assistance of an external tough taskmaster or administrator;
• failed to provide the necessary leadership and governance of mental health services;
• failed to treat specialists with respect and not simply as subordinates/employees (Dr Mo Nagdee);
• Not only failed to implement its plans on mental health services but also seemed incapable of action or implementation over long periods;
• failed to develop community-based mental health services, the sine qua non of de-institutionalisation;
• failed to guide and provide support to TPHPRC;
• failed to maintain adequate infrastructure standards at TPHPRC;
• as a result, infrastructure has degenerated over time as detailed in the Report;
• failed to instil Consequence Management to hold senior staff accountable;
• the work ethic has severely deteriorated;
• the leadership and governance are in disarray; and
• there are severe shortages of staff in general and at critical areas.

b.  The TPHPRC outburst was just the needed lightening rod and representative of a broader systemic and prolonged poor-quality service delivery for Mental Health Care Users (MCHUs) in the EC.

B.  RECOMMENDATIONS, DETAILS p59:

a.  The National Health Minister must evoke the appropriate and relevant Sections of the Constitution to appoint an Administrator with respect to Mental Health Services in the ECDoH. This must be done within 90 working days through the appointment of an Administrator.

b.  This Complaint has re-emphasised the urgent need to review the National Health Act (NHA) 2003 and MHCA 2002 that took away the powers of the President, the National Minister of Health and Magistrates in addressing issues of Mental Health nationally. Locating Mental Health Services at the Provincial sphere of government in the so-called concurrent competence has created difficulties rather than solutions to Mental Health Care Service. This competency must revert back to the National Health Minister (Health Ombud Report page 54-55 item 14).

c.  Dr Sukeri should be reported to the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) as a matter of urgency for serious professional misconduct and violations of codes of health practice identified in the report. The rationale for the recommendation is:

• Dr. Sukeri released unverified, false and damaging death statistical information to the public, in so doing committing scientific fraud;
• Dr. Sukeri violated the confidentiality of patients and by so doing their dignity;
• He violated his confidentiality clause signed in his contracts with ECDoH and TPHPRC;
• He failed in his duty of care as a professional;
• He violated the MHCA;
• He discharged patients without proper authorisation and without following the MHCA;
• Dr Sukeri denied Ms Ngcume, the CEO, the right to exercise her duty fully by discharging MHCUs without her knowledge;
• Dr Sukeri was found to be untruthful, evasive and duplicitous in his evidence;
• He created an irretrievable loss of trust and confidence with colleagues at TPHPRC and ECDoH;
• He was jointly responsible for creating a toxic working environment in which to care for vulnerable MCHUs;
• It is the Ombud’s role to protect the integrity of the health system and of users against abuse;
• Dr Sukeri caused unnecessary reputational damage to the National Health System and its integrity;
• He caused unnecessary pain and unwarranted reputational damage to innocent staff members, MHCUs and to TPHPRC as an institution and the ECDoH; and
• That some MHCUs discharged have been re-admitted, one has committed a crime and others are not coping well, as so far as found, questioned the quality of assessments undertaken, the clinical judgements/decisions and competence of the practitioner.

d.  The HPCSA should consider the immediate suspension of Dr Sukeri from any practice pending a process to assess his fitness for office as proposed out below, to safeguard the wellbeing of patients, protect him and the integrity of the profession.

e.  Disciplinary proceedings must be instituted against Dr Sukeri in compliance with the Disciplinary Code and Procedure applicable to Senior Management Services (SMS) members in the Public Service. This should follow a fair, transparent and due process.

f.  Dr Sukeri should be charged for gross misconduct and incompetence based on the findings in this report especially the violation of patients confidentiality and for committing what amounted to scientific misconduct.

• Consideration must be given that he may need assistance with psychological counselling.
• Currently and from all the evidence gathered he is like a round peg in a square hole within TPHPRC and the ECDoH.
• He has irretrievably broken trust within the TPHPRC and the ECDoH.

g.  The HPCSA must consider the appointment of a panel of 3 independent members, Chaired, by a senior psychiatrist to speedily resolve and finalise Dr Sukeri’s fitness to hold office, for his professional and ethical violations, broken relationships, misconducts and incompetence. Alternatively, the Minister should set up a special ad hoc panel to address the fitness to hold the office of Dr Sukeri.

h.  Dr Sukeri must, in addition to making an apology to the National Health Minister and copied to the Health Ombud (page 61 dated 12th July 2018) and sending a correction to the Rapport Ombudsman, should make a public and unconditional apology in writing to the nation, to his peers in psychiatry, to the medical profession, to the staff at TPHPRC and the ECDoH and to the many patients and families whose lives he compromised through peddling false and exaggerated information.

i. He must acknowledge the pain inflicted to many persons and the reputational damage caused. This apology must be widely publicised and accorded the same weight by the media as they have done with the complaint. SASOP must as a professional body take appropriate actions with regards to Dr. Sukeri.

j. The Management at TPHPRC was so dysfunctional and riddled with dead-end power struggles, it must be overhauled with new blood. This must be done through the SG’s Office and the proposed Administrator.

k.  All the recommended internal disciplinary decisions already identified were upheld and must be completed speedily following due processes and in accordance with fair labour practices.

C. CONCLUSION:

In one of his progress report forwarded to the Health Ombud on 15th August 2018, Dr TD Mbengashe highlighted a number of activities taking place at TPHPRC starting to address some of the concerns raised by various witnesses. He also provided an update on the disciplinary processes already underway.

In his input, Dr Sukeri indicated that following our visit, positive progress was already taking place at TPHPRC. All these bodes well. Advocacy for patients is a well-recognised phenomenon within the Health System and is supported fully.

However, the health professional must observe and practice the highest ethical standards, must respect the truth and be truthful at all times an advocate with integrity.

There is no place for advocacy through unethical conduct, or through lying or peddling untruths or through the disrespect for tried and tested professional complaints processes.

There is equally no advocacy through bringing disrepute to a profession, to a health system, to a nation and fellow professionals and other innocent human beings.

I hope through the findings and recommendations in this Report, the ECDoH and the Mental

Health Professionals in the EC can work together to create an attractive working environment and services, which are in the best interest of the MHCUs.

Thank you!

Issued by the Health Ombud: Prof. Malegapuru W. Makgoba

MB.; ChB.; (Natal); DPhil.; (Oxon); FRCP (Lond); FRS (SA); MAS(SA); FCP (SA) addendum;

OMP (Silver)

Foreign Associate Member of the National Academy of Medicine (USA)

Fellow of Imperial College (Lond) (Health Sciences Faculty)

Health Ombud: Republic of South Africa

For more information contact: Ricardo Mahlakanya: Mobile. 066 473 8666, and Email. rmahlakanya@ohsc.org.za

The Health Ombud, Professor Malegapuru Makgoba will brief members of the media about the “Report on an Investigation into Allegations of Patient Mismanagement and Patient Rights Violations at the Tower Psychiatric Hospital and Psychosocial Rehabilitation Centre (TPHPRC). The briefing will be attended by the Minister of Health, Dr. Aaron Motsoaledi; Deputy Minister of Health, Dr. Joe Phaahla; the Director-General of the Department of Health, Ms. Malebona Matsoso and OHSC Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Siphiwe Mndaweni.

The Health Ombud, Professor Malegapuru Makgoba to brief members of the media about the Report on an Investigation into Allegations of Patient Mismanagement and Patient Rights Violations at the Tower Psychiatric Hospital and Psychosocial Rehabilitation Centre (TPHPRC). The briefing to be attended by the Minister of Health, Dr. Aaron Motsoaledi; Deputy Minister of Health, Dr. Joe Phaahla; the Director-General of the Department of Health, Ms. Malebona Matsoso and OHSC Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Siphiwe Mndaweni.

The media briefing will be held as follows:

Date: Thursday, 23 August 2018

Venue: MRC Building, 1 Soutpansberg Road, Prinshoff, Pretoria

Time: 10:00

For more information contact: Ricardo Mahlakanya: Mobile. 066 473 8666, and Email. rmahlakanya@ohsc.org.za

With the release of the White paper for public comments, this provides an opportunity to listen and discuss with each other as South Africans to find the best way/s to translate the NHI within our context. We dare not fail on this ambitious challenge.

South Africa’s NPC recommended Universal Health Care (NHI) as the policy option in 2012, almost 3 years before the UN and WHO, as part of its recommendation to address the triple challenges of Poverty, Inequality and Unemployment. This was endorsed by all political parties in Parliament and must now be implemented.

In the 70 years of the UK’s NHS existence, there has never been a debate or question in Britain about whether the NHS should exist or not or that it should be reviewed.

Over the 70 years of the UK’s NHS existence passionate debates have and continue to take place on matters of governance, manpower (human resources), leadership and funding. These are real painful implementation issues, all meant to improve the functioning and better translation of the NHS concept in reality on the ground.

The current Minister of Health has led and championed Universal Health Care. He started the race, led the race and must complete the race. Translated properly, the NHI will not only address all the challenges we currently face within the Health System but also transform the system fundamentally and progressively Quality Universal HealthCare (NHI) will not be cheap and has never been cheap anywhere but must be implemented without further delays. NHI is the most important and only transformative process of our health System needed. The rich of our country must subsidise the poor to establish and provide universal health care. They must shoulder this responsibility with pride.

1. The National Health Service (NHS) was born on July 5th 1948 out of a long-held ideal that good healthcare should be available to all, regardless of wealth. When health secretary Aneurin Bevan opened Park Hospital in Manchester it was the climax of a hugely ambitious plan to bring good healthcare to all and in so doing transform the health system of the UK.
2. For the first-time hospitals, doctors, nurses, pharmacists, opticians and dentists were brought together under one umbrella organization, the NHS, that is free for all at the point of delivery. The central principles were clear: the health service will be available to all and financed entirely from taxation, which means that people pay into it according to their means. The rich must subsidise the poor to establish and provide universal health care.
3. It was the British response to address the severe effects of the 2 wars and great depression that had left the nation with severe Poverty and Inequality (“Health Disparities”).
4. Little was realized then that the NHS would become an important model for equitable access to Universal Health Care. Universal Health Care started in Norway in 1912.
5. Harry Leslie Smith, a 91-year old RAF veteran, born into an impoverished (poor) mining family remembers life before the NHS as a life/existence of “Hunger, filth, fear and death” and unemployment.
6. Many Notable Achievements since its establishment.

2009 – New NHS Constitution

The NHS Constitution was published on January 21 and sets out your rights as an NHS patient. The NHS Constitution was published on January 21 2009. For the first time in the history of the NHS, the Constitution brings together details of what staff, patients and the public can expect from the NHS. It aims to ensure the NHS will always do what it was set up to do in 1948: provide high-quality healthcare that’s free and for everyone.

2009 – New Horizons programme launched

The New Horizons programme was launched to improve adult mental health services in England. New Horizons brings together local and national organisations and individuals to work towards a society that values mental wellbeing as much as physical health. It aims to cover a person’s lifetime, from building the foundations of good mental health in childhood to maintaining resilience in older age. It also emphasises the importance of prevention, effective treatment and recovery.

2009 – NHS Health Checks

The NHS Health Check was introduced for adults in England between the ages of 40 and 74. Primary care trusts begin implementing the NHS Health Check programme in April 2009. It has the potential to prevent an average of 1,600 heart attacks and strokes and save up to 650 lives each year. It could prevent over 4,000 people a year from developing diabetes and detect at least 20,000 cases of diabetes or kidney disease earlier, allowing people to manage their condition better and improving their quality of life.

The NHS is turning 70 years in 16 days time. The UK is thus 70 years ahead of us.

Since then, Universal Health Care has become accepted as norm and the best option to address the national challenges of Poverty and Inequalities (Disparities) in Health. In the USA it’s called Obamacare (2014). Over 100 countries have adopted or are in the process of moving into NHI.

The WHO has declared Universal Health Care as best and only policy option to address Health Inequities globally and so has the UN in its Sustainable Development Goals, SDG 3: Ensure healthy lives and promote wellbeing for all at all ages.

South Africa’s NPC recommended Universal Health Care (NHI) as the policy option in 2012, almost 3 years before the UN and WHO as part of its recommendation to address the triple challenges of Poverty, Inequality and Unemployment. This was endorsed by all political parties in Parliament.

In the 70 years of the NHS existence, there has never been a debate or question in Britain about whether the NHS should exist or not or that it should be reviewed.  As South Africans. we should therefore not focus our discussion or debates on accepting the principle or the concept of Universal Health Care. We should take this as a given.

Like in many countries, the concept should be accepted as it offers the only and best option currently available. The NHI is in line with our Constitution and NHA. It is the most transformative concept to our Health System since the dawn of our democracy.

1. The current Minister of Health has led and championed Universal Health Care. He started the race, led the race and must complete the race. Translated properly, the NHI will not only address all the challenges we currently face within the Health System but also transform the Health system progressively and fundamentally.
2. Over the 70 years of the NHS’s existence debates have and continue to take place on matters of governance, manpower (human resources), leadership and funding. These are real implementation issues, all meant to improve the functioning and better translation of the NHS concept in reality on the ground.
3. With the release of the White paper for public comments this provides an opportunity to listen and discuss with each other to find the best way/s to translate the NHI within our context. We dare not fail on this ambitious challenge.

10 June 2018

Following the release of the OHSC 2016/17 annual inspection report on 5 June 2018, and the subsequent enquiries following the release of the report, the OHSC promised to engage further with the media.

This press briefing is aimed at clarifying certain sections of the report, mainly the interpretation of the scoring.

The Office has regulatory powers by law and assess facilities with established norms and standards, issue guidance to the norms and standards, certify facilities as compliant or non-compliant with norms and standards, monitor compliance and further receive and investigate complaints, the function of the Health Ombud. This is achieved through conducting unannounced inspections in facilities; health facilities are not pre-warned of the Office’s inspections.

It is important to mention that inspections are a snapshot in time, therefore findings will be for that particular moment an inspection is undertaken in a facility; however, what is required for patient safety and uninterrupted service delivery is consistent compliance with standards. In order for the OHSC’s inspection programme to achieve the best chance of this happening, the emphasis is on fostering the implementation of systems and processes within health establishments that will consistently deliver the desired outcomes. Therefore, the focus of the Office is not only to assess the outcome available at the time of an inspection, however, to encourage facilities to establish systems and processes to improve quality and safety.

The Methodology utilized by the OHSC Inspectors included, document review and analysis, observations, patient interviews, staff interviews and patient record assessment.

The Sampling of facilities for the 2016/17 inspections was opportunistic, the majority of facilities were the worst performing. There was also consideration of available resources such as the number of inspectors and the budget for the financial year.

Therefore, these findings should not be extrapolated as being representative of the overall performance of a province but should be used as a means of providing a glimpse or indication of performance in provinces.

Inspection tools developed from the National Core Standards (NCS) were used to assess health facilities. The NCS provide a common definition for quality and are based on the concept of Domains. A Domain is an aspect of service delivery where quality or safety can be at risk. A Standard is what is expected to be delivered in terms of quality care. These Standards are set high to promote patient safety and quality care. The inspections are designed to guide health establishments towards compliance with the norms and standards, in other words to highlight the steps and a process to be followed in order to achieve compliance.

The scoring framework considers scores in various functional areas in a health establishment and aggregated to determine a facility score. Facilities are then certified to be compliant or non-compliant with norms and standards using scores. There are six categories of the scoring framework; the first score is the highest =/>80% for a compliant health establishment. Scores between 70-79%, (compliant with a requirement); scores between 60-69% (conditionally compliant); scores between 50-59% (conditionally compliant with serious concerns); scores between 40-49% (non-compliant) and scores <40% (critically non-complaint).

Breakdown of scores of the 696 inspected in facilities in financial year 2016/17:

Total number of health establishments inspected = 696

• 80%: 5Health Establishments (2 clinics and 3 hospitals)
• 70-79%: 32Health Establishments (24 Clinics and 8 Hospitals)
• 60-69%: 79(64 Clinics, 2 CHCs and 13 Hospitals)
• 50-59%: 168(146 Clinics, 12 CHCs and 10 Hospitals)
• 40-49%: 240(219 Clinics, 12 CHCs and 9 Hospitals)
• <40%: 172(165 Clinics, 4 CHCs and 3 Hospitals)

Out of the 284 health establishments, five (5) heath establishments were found to be compliant, 279 health establishments were found to be complaint with various requirements and conditions. In FY 2016/17, the OHSC conducted inspections in 696 public health facilities.

In 2014/15 inspections, the baseline was high for most provinces. In the subsequent 2015/16 inspections, provinces showed a decline in performance and in 2016/17 slight improvements were noted.

For more information contact: Ricardo Mahlakanya: Mobile. 066 473 8666, and Email. rmahlakanya@ohsc.org.za

8 June 2018

The Office of Health Standards Compliance (OHSC) presented the findings of its 2016/17 Annual Inspection Report on 05 June 2018 to the Portfolio Committee on Health. The report showed that there is some improvement in certain areas; stagnation and decline in other areas.

The OHSC invites members of the media to a media briefing to explain the findings of the report.

The media briefing will be held as follows:

Date: Sunday, 10 June 2018

Venue: South African Medical Research Building, Cnr Soutpansberg Road, and Theodore Howe Streets, Prinshoff, Pretoria

Time: 14:00

For more information contact: Ricardo Mahlakanya: Mobile. 066 473 8666, and Email. rmahlakanya@ohsc.org.za

6 June 2018

The Office of Health Standards Compliance (OHSC) wishes to distance itself from the misleading heading that appeared in the Business Day on the 6^th of June 2018, related to the report delivered by the OHSC in Parliament on the 5^th of June with the heading, public healthcare in shambles.

The OHSC presented a report that showed some improvement in certain areas; stagnation and decline in other areas. The report cannot be characterised as an indication that the healthcare system is “in shambles”.

The OHSC has further noted that the 80% scoring is regarded as a pass mark for heath establishments; and the Office will engage with the media to explain the scoring system used in the report.

Issued by the Office of Health Standards Compliance

For more information contact: Ricardo Mahlakanya: Mobile. 066 473 8666, and Email. rmahlakanya@ohsc.org.za

7 June 2018

I would like to put on record that there has been an unfortunate and distorted misrepresentation of my assessment as the Health Ombud of the state of the Health System by certain sectors of the media following my appearance on the Tim Modise Network. This had the effect to decontextualise and disassociate my assessment and my recommendation.

My clear intention and recommendation recorded on the Tim Modise Network was for the Minister of Health, Dr Aaron Motsoaledi to consider leading and convening a multi representative group to explore new ways for the renewal of the Health System. Unfortunately, this has been totally ignored and lost by most in the media, I hope these can be reflected in the current debate as they are on the record.

As stated in my Life Esidimeni Report: Our legislative framework requires urgent amendments as it gives concurrent powers to provinces and municipalities but when all fails, only a Minister who has limited powers is held alone to account.

Minister Motsoaledi has worked tirelessly to successfully implement the recommendations of the National Development Plan and in driving the further transformation of the Health System through the National Health Insurance.

Issued by the Health Ombud, Prof MW Makgoba

For more information contact: Ricardo Mahlakanya: Mobile. 066 473 8666, and Email. rmahlakanya@ohsc.org.za