Example
A physiotherapist working in a rehab service notices issues with social work assessments for their clients, which is preventing them from progressing to the next stage of the rehab programme.
They initially raise their concerns with their team leader, but no action is taken. They then raise it with a more senior social worker. Again, no action is taken.
The physiotherapist feels that this is a significant issue, as their list of clients is growing, and they are not able to manage supply due to this ‘block’ in the system. However, they are reluctant to jeopardise good working relations.
They decide to raise this concern with the health and social care partnership (HSCP) confidential contact, who logs it at stage 1 of the whistleblowing procedure and discusses support needs, as well as how best to progress the concern. They agree that a senior social worker in another part of the HSCP would be best to progress the concern, and the confidential contact shares details (though not the physiotherapist's identity) with them.
The procedure states that investigators should explore ways of investigating concerns that do not arouse the suspicion of others. Given the close working relations between the physiotherapist and the social workers, careful consideration is given as to how to investigate the situation. The senior social worker decides to initiate a random case audit; appearing as if part of regular audit processes and removing suspicions that the physiotherapist had raised concerns.