Whistleblowing process in Finnish health care

Wrongdoing in health care is harmful action that jeopardizes patient safety and can be targeted at the patient or employees. Wrongdoing can vary from illegal, unethical or unprofessional action to inappropriate behavior in the workplace. Whistleblowing can be considered as a process where wrongdoing is suspected or oberved in health care by health care professionals and disclosed to the party that can influence the wrongful action. Whistleblowing causes severe harm to the whistleblower and to the object of whistleblowing complaint, to their personnel life and working community. The aim of this study was to analyze whistleblowing process in Finnish health care. The overall goal is to raise concern about wrongdoing and whistleblowing in Finnish health care. In this cross-sectional descriptive study the data were collected (n = 397) with probability sampling from health care professionals and members of The Union of Health and Social Care Professionals in Finland Tehy. The data were collected with questionnaire: “Whistleblowing -väärinkäytösten paljastaminen terveydenhuollossa” developed for this study and by using Webropol questionnaire -software during 26.6.-17.7.2015. The data were analyzed statistically. According to the results of this study health care professionals had suspected (67 %) and observed (66 %) wrongdoing in health care, more often than once a month (30%). Mostly were suspected (37 %) and observed (36%) inadequacy of the personnel and least violence toward the patient (3 %). Wrongdoing was whistle blown (suspected 29 %, observed 40 %) primarily inside the organization to the closest supervisor (76 %), face-to-face (88 %). Mostly the whistle was blown on nurses’ wrongdoing (58 %). Whistleblowing act didn’t end the wrongdoing (52 %) and whistleblowing had negative consequences to the whistleblower such as discrimination by the manager (35 %). Respondents with work experience less than ten years (62 %), working in temporary position (75 %) or in management position (88 %) were, more unwilling to blow the whistle. Whistleblowing should be conducted internally, to the closest manager in writing and anonymously. Wrongdoing should be dealt between the parties involved, and written warning should ensue from wrongdoing. According to the results of this study whistleblowing on wrongdoing in health care causes negative consequences to the whistleblower. In future, attention in health care should be paid to preventing wrongdoing and enhancing whistleblowing in order to decrease wrongdoing and lessen the consequences that whistleblowers face after blowing the whistle.

Whistleblowing process in Finnish health care

Wrongdoing in health care is harmful action that jeopardizes patient safety and can be targeted at the patient or employees. Wrongdoing can vary from illegal, unethical or unprofessional action to inappropriate behavior in the workplace. Whistleblowing can be considered as a process where wrongdoing is suspected or oberved in health care by health care professionals and disclosed to the party that can influence the wrongful action. Whistleblowing causes severe harm to the whistleblower and to the object of whistleblowing complaint, to their personnel life and working community. The aim of this study was to analyze whistleblowing process in Finnish health care. The overall goal is to raise concern about wrongdoing and whistleblowing in Finnish health care. In this cross-sectional descriptive study the data were collected (n = 397) with probability sampling from health care professionals and members of The Union of Health and Social Care Professionals in Finland Tehy. The data were collected with questionnaire: “Whistleblowing -väärinkäytösten paljastaminen terveydenhuollossa” developed for this study and by using Webropol questionnaire -software during 26.6.-17.7.2015. The data were analyzed statistically. According to the results of this study health care professionals had suspected (67 %) and observed (66 %) wrongdoing in health care, more often than once a month (30%). Mostly were suspected (37 %) and observed (36%) inadequacy of the personnel and least violence toward the patient (3 %). Wrongdoing was whistle blown (suspected 29 %, observed 40 %) primarily inside the organization to the closest supervisor (76 %), face-to-face (88 %). Mostly the whistle was blown on nurses’ wrongdoing (58 %). Whistleblowing act didn’t end the wrongdoing (52 %) and whistleblowing had negative consequences to the whistleblower such as discrimination by the manager (35 %). Respondents with work experience less than ten years (62 %), working in temporary position (75 %) or in management position (88 %) were, more unwilling to blow the whistle. Whistleblowing should be conducted internally, to the closest manager in writing and anonymously. Wrongdoing should be dealt between the parties involved, and written warning should ensue from wrongdoing. According to the results of this study whistleblowing on wrongdoing in health care causes negative consequences to the whistleblower. In future, attention in health care should be paid to preventing wrongdoing and enhancing whistleblowing in order to decrease wrongdoing and lessen the consequences that whistleblowers face after blowing the whistle.

PROTECTING TRADE SECRETS IN LITIGATION - THE IMPACT OF ARTICLE 9 OF THE EU TRADE SECRET DIRECTIVE ESPECIALLY ON FINNISH LAW

In November 2013 the European Commission issued the “Proposal for a Directive on the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure” (referred to as “TSD”). The TSD offers minimum harmonisation and aims at promoting sharing of knowledge, and the exploitation of innovations on the Internal Market. The European Parliament adopted the TSD on April 14, 2016 and the EU Member States will have two years to implement it. The TSD includes a harmonised definition of a trade secret that builds on the definition provided in Article 39 of the TRIPS Agreement. Moreover, it also ensures the freedom of expression and information and the protection of whistle-blowers. Appropriate means of actions and remedies against unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure of trade secrets are also included, such as provisional and pecuniary measures, injunctions and corrective measures or allocation of damages. This study examines the protection of trade secrets in the course of litigation regulated in Article 9 of the TSD. Currently, the protection of trade secrets within the EU is fragmented especially in this regard, which makes companies reluctant to resort to litigation when a trade secret has unlawfully been misappropriated or it is suspected that a trade secret is being misused. The regulations in Article 9 expand only to the hearing in court. Such protection is welcomed and a step in the right direction. However, in my study I have found that in order for the protection to be sufficient there is a need to further establish measures to protect trade secrets during the entire process, from the filing of the claim to the end when the judgement is given. Consequently, I also discuss different measures that could be used to strengthen the protection of trade secrets before the hearing in court, as evidence are gathered.

Protecting Trade Secrets In Litigation The Impact of Article 9 of The EU Trade Secret Directive Especially on Finnish Law

In November 2013 the European Commission issued the “Proposal for a Directive on the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure” (referred to as “TSD”). The TSD offers minimum harmonisation and aims at promoting sharing of knowledge, and the exploitation of innovations on the Internal Market. The European Parliament adopted the TSD on April 14, 2016 and the EU Member States will have two years to implement it. The TSD includes a harmonised definition of a trade secret that builds on the definition provided in Article 39 of the TRIPS Agreement. Moreover, it also ensures the freedom of expression and information and the protection of whistle-blowers. Appropriate means of actions and remedies against unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure of trade secrets are also included, such as provisional and pecuniary measures, injunctions and corrective measures or allocation of damages. This study examines the protection of trade secrets in the course of litigation regulated in Article 9 of the TSD. Currently, the protection of trade secrets within the EU is fragmented especially in this regard, which makes companies reluctant to resort to litigation when a trade secret has unlawfully been misappropriated or it is suspected that a trade secret is being misused. The regulations in Article 9 expand only to the hearing in court. Such protection is welcomed and a step in the right direction. However, in my study I have found that in order for the protection to be sufficient there is a need to further establish measures to protect trade secrets during the entire process, from the filing of the claim to the end when the judgement is given. Consequently, I also discuss different measures that could be used to strengthen the protection of trade secrets before the hearing in court, as evidence are gathered.