Institutionalised problems of all kinds could be solved by ensuring a whistleblower has more to lose than to gain by remaining silent.
When someone knows something is wrong, he or she could be held complicit by failing to report it. Presumably via a whistleblower's hotline, on the model of Crimestoppers. It could quickly make the world a better place, because nobody would dare not to cover his or her own back by reporting what could later be held against them as a joint offence.
No matter if it is dangerous practice in hospital, abuse in a care home, malpractice or fraud or waste, or any abuse of any power, there would be a restraint. Male surgeons could not carry on killing, or molesting their female colleagues, safe in knowing anyone who 'tells tales' would lose his or her career (or have to flee the country like one anaesthetist in a famous case)
In that example, or any of the church, political or police scandals, and others, it frequently turns out that everyone including the cleaner's cat knew,* but everyone who attempted to tell, through internal reporting, was sacked or threatened
Supposed existing whistleblower protection doesn't work. Internal methods certainly don't. In a group of people, such as an operating theatre staff, or the police station, the first to report will be safest, after registering the incident at Whistleblower-hotline, and could carry on among the offenders knowing s/he would never find themselves in court, jointly liable by tacit complicity of silence.
Nobody would know who it was. Others, also uneasy, would get themselves protection by also reporting. Soon, a collection of individual reports would show the problem.
*The Truth Commission found that every one of the different religious groups they investigated (20?) had problems with power abuse and one example was known to a cleaner for years, because only the cleaner was around the premises when a child would obediently arrive for 'instruction' ordered by the abuser.