Investigation into matters relating to Jimmy Savile at Broadmoor Hospital

Many celebrities make a significant contribution to improving patient wellbeing and help to raise charitable funds, but that does not imply that they should be exempt from standard procedures governing access to NHS patients. NHS bodies should ensure that any celebrity they may consider appointing should be subject to the suitability checks appropriate to their contact with the NHS facility and its patients, and should not be given privileged access under any circumstances.

Some celebrities may have the necessary qualities and the desire to contribute to the NHS in a non-executive capacity, but they should not be exempt from the usual selection process, which would include careful consideration of the benefits and risks. Celebrities should not be considered for operational or executive NHS roles – not even on a voluntary basis.

Security systems at Broadmoor were underdeveloped and potentially ineffective for much of Savile’s active involvement with the hospital, and were sometimes poorly applied in practice. Nobody but a properly trained and appropriately qualified member of staff should be in a clinical area without supervision. We believe that the much-needed overhaul has been effectively implemented, but we recommend that the way theory is put into practice should be reviewed regularly by West London Mental Health NHS Trust.

Procedures to safeguard vulnerable patients were poorly developed during Savile’s active involvement with Broadmoor, including the reporting and proper investigation of complaints. We believe that safeguarding has been greatly improved and that procedures are appropriate and effective, but we recommend that the way theory is put into practice should be reviewed regularly. We also recommend that the arrangement that separates local authority responsibility for safeguarding from the provision of social workers should be reviewed within the next year, and that a risk assessment and appraisal of alternative options should be carried out.

The closed and introspective institutional culture of Broadmoor failed to prevent some instances of psychological, physical and sexual abuse of patients, including those committed by Savile, and discouraged staff from reporting or taking effective action. We believe that the much-needed improvement has been achieved, principally through recruitment, induction, training, continuing education and disciplinary policies. We recommend that the effectiveness of these policies continues to be monitored regularly by the Trust’s board and by the Care Quality Commission.

In order to improve the review and monitoring of security systems, safeguarding and organisational culture, we recommend that service commissioners should review how all three high-security hospitals share relevant comparative information.

Department of Health procedures proved inadequate in ensuring that the decision to give Savile a managerial role in 1988 was thoroughly evaluated and subject to proper scrutiny. In part, this was due to a combination of circumstances at the time that is unlikely to be repeated. We recommend that any decision to have the Department of Health directly manage an operational service should be exceptional and subject to thorough risk assessment.

Public officials, including senior civil servants, who are responsible for recommending the appointment of someone with whom they have a close personal relationship should generally withdraw from the appointment process. At the very least, they must ensure that their judgement is subject to independent verification. We recommend that the Department of Health and NHS organisations review the relevant policies to ensure that this is made explicit.

We believe that stories of multiple sexual relationships between senior and junior staff circulated widely within and outside Broadmoor, and were particularly corrosive. We believe this contributed to an atmosphere that was unusually tolerant of sexual relationships between staff and patients in some parts of the hospital. We recommend that NHS boards ensure that policies and systems are in place to encourage staff to report such behaviour, and make sure that the organisation can act to eradicate it.

We are particularly concerned that we cannot confidently exclude the possibility that an irregular payment was made to settle an impending tribunal case at which embarrassing personal allegations would have become public. We recommend that NHS Protect and the police investigate this possibility.