Whistleblowers and anonymity

The title of the article in last Friday's New York Times summed it up: "Ombudsmen Gave Whistle-Blowers' Names to State Agency." Evidently, employees who care for developmentally disabled patients have long been promised anonymity for reporting potential cases of abuse and neglect, but they have not actually been receiving it. The identities of employees who make such reports have been routinely forwarded to the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities, which is in ultimate charge of many of these patients.

While the reports themselves must obviously be forwarded in order for the situations to be investigated and, if necessary, rectified, including the names of the employees filing the reports seems counterproductive at best and malicious at worst. Including the "whistle-blower's" name does nothing to aid the state in its inquiry. What it does do, however, is raise the specter of reprisals, which in turn disincentivizes employees from making reports.

Reporting cases of suspected abuse and neglect is not confined to employees of mental health institutions. In several states, EMS providers are "mandated reporters." As the name suggests, this means that if we encounter an instance of abuse or neglect--for both the pediatric and geriatric populations---we are required to file a report with the appropriate state office. To my knowledge, there is no assumption of anonymity that goes along with a mandated report. That's not a big deal, at least in my eyes, because we're told up front what to expect.

Whether or not there should be anonymity for whistleblowers is a different, though not entirely unrelated, question. It seems to me that there should be some sort of protection for those who speak up on behalf of those who can't be their own advocates. I'm not sure if complaints submitted entirely anonymously are the best way to go, but the ombudsmen know who came forward with which report. It's the facility administrators who are kept in the dark, which seems wise. The temptation to discourage reporting by wielding the threat of reprisals would be too great for some unscrupulous management teams to resist. Not all, maybe, but even one is too many. And as a measure of protection for the facilities themselves, the ombudsmen are well-equipped to do a little investigating of their own if a pattern of obviously specious complaints emerges.

Ultimately, New York's bait-and-switch with regard to whistleblower anonymity comes at the cost of the patients' welfare. And whenever it's the patient who loses in the end, something needs to be fixed.