Questions over duty of care to women at clinic

Allegations staff were offered financial incentives to encourage women to have terminations dominated newspapers this week, adding bitter fuel to the entrenched debate on abortion.

Despite eye-watering headlines put out by vociferous proponents and opponents of these procedures, this story is less about what women do with their bodies than how a large organisation manages the care of extremely vulnerable people.

Key performance indicators are used by hospital trusts and councils to measure how well they are doing.

During the inspection a year ago, staff told health watchdog inspectors they believed one of these indicators, measuring numbers of women who did not proceed, to be linked to their pay.

While no wrongdoing on this score was identified, the report indicates a damaging, top-down approach to management of Marie Stopes’ 70 clinics, which made it more difficult for staff to look after women going through a traumatic experience.

Inspectors found staff sometimes walked in on people undergoing a termination and friends and relatives were often discouraged from coming along for moral support.

Plainly, staff did not fully understand how their responsibilities to their clients meshed with their duty to their employers.

This could raise questions about the integrity of decisions made in treatment and flies in the face of the duty of care owed to these women.

While it may be the case staff were not offered incentives, the fact some at Maidstone were under this impression is equally damning. Failings in behaviour can be traced to the culture, which is set by those at the top.