ENTERTAINMENT

Two senior doctors accused of not stopping Ian Paterson enter legal battle to save their careers


Ian Paterson is serving 20 years in prison for 17 willful wounds

Rogue breast surgeon Ian Paterson was free to slaughter cancer patients for eight years, despite nine separate reports of botched treatments, a tribunal heard.

Paterson performed "experimental mastectomies" on women where the breast tissue stayed in place and the cancer was able to return. In some cases, he recommended treatment to women without cancer and offered them more expensive procedures.

He has worked in NHS hospitals in the West Midlands and in private clinics, including those operated by Spire hospitals. By 2017, 675 of 1,207 women had died who had undergone the unregulated treatment.

Now a medical tribunal has heard allegations that problems were raised with the doctor as early as 2004, but he was allowed to continue working.

Senior colleagues at the Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust (HEFT) were aware of nine separate reports of botched treatments as of 2007. However, in 2010 only one was reported to the General Medical Council for investigation.

New details of the scandal came to light at the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service, where two senior doctors accused of failing to stop Paterson started a lawsuit to save their careers in medicine.

Mark Goldman and Ian Cunliffe face misconduct charges after a two-year investigation found Paterson botched more than 1,000 or performed unnecessary surgeries because of a culture of "denial".

Mr. Goldman, who was HEFT's chief executive, resigned in 2010 with a pension pot of £ 2.7 million just three months before news of a patient recall broke.

Mr Cunliffe, a former medical director of the trust, has been charged with attempting to block a full patient recall amid concerns about their health.

Mark Goldman

Ian Cunliffe

Mark Goldman (left) and Ian Cunliffe (right) face misconduct charges after a two-year investigation found Paterson botched more than 1,000 or performed unnecessary surgeries because of a culture of “denial”

GMC's Nick Clarke QC told the Manchester hearing, “Mr. Patterson was a hospital worker in 2003 and some concerns were raised in 2004.

By 2007, he had problems with his behavior towards colleagues and inadequate and incomplete mastectomies were performed. There was already an awareness and potential of the risk of harm from Mr. Patterson.

“However, between June and August 2007, the Trust Board failed to brief the Trust Board on a number of matters and identified a significant lack of informed consent from the patient.

“The real gift was a multitude of reports, interim reports, and final reports from a number of individuals – nine of them. Initially, none of this information was disclosed to the GMC, so the matter was not reported to the GMC.

"There was no formal complaint or process at any point in 2007, 2008 and 2009. When the Interim Appointments Board reviewed Mr. Patterson's position in 2010, they first had to deal with the information that was made available to the GMC. "

Patricia Welch (center) speaks at Nottingham Crown Court after Ian Paterson was convicted in 2017

Patricia Welch (center) speaks at Nottingham Crown Court after Ian Paterson was convicted in 2017

Paterson is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence after convicting 17 willful wounds and three unlawful wounds in 2017 between 1997 and 2011.

Mr. Clarke continued, “We are dealing here with the very harrowing acts of physical trauma caused by a surgeon.

"However, the ability to practice listening in this case will not address patient complaints, but rather professional concerns about the procedures and steps that should have been taken to halt it to protect patient safety."

Imprisoned for intentional wounding for 20 years: Ian Paterson

Slaughtering breast surgeon Ian Paterson is currently serving his 20-year prison sentence.

What was he sentenced for? Following legal proceedings in 2017, he was convicted of 17 willful wounds and three unlawful wounds between 1997 and 2011.

How did he harm patients? Paterson performed "experimental mastectomies" on women where the breast tissue stayed in place and the cancer was able to return.

In some cases, he also recommended treatment for women who did not have cancer and offered them more expensive procedures.

Who is affected? By 2017, 675 of 1,207 women had died who had undergone the unregulated treatment.

Where did he work? Paterson has worked in NHS hospitals in the West Midlands and in private clinics, including those operated by Spire hospitals.

Six Interim Order Panels (IOPs) were notified to the hearing between 2010 and 2012. The first, in December 2010, concerned a single complaint related to an operation Mr. Paterson had performed in 2006 and no order was placed.

A second review took place in July 2011. At this point the number of complaints had risen to four, but Paterson was allowed to continue working under supervision.

Further reviews took place on December 19, 2011 and May 31, 2012, under which the conditions were met.

Additional complaints led to a further review in July 2012. At this point there were twenty complaints. However, the terms of registration of Paterson were maintained.

By October 2012, 30 complaints had been investigated and he was officially suspended.

He had already been excluded from the health foundation in 2011.

Goldman and Cunliffe face various misconduct charges, including inadequate management responses to concerns about Paterson, failure to share the full story of the concern with investigators, failure to respond to concerns in a timely manner, failure to prevent him from having breast surgery ; and protecting patients from the risk of harm and failure to notify the GMC of a surgeon concern.

Defense attorney Mark Sutton QC told the hearing, “The GMC allegations against Mr. Goldman include seven relating to inappropriateness of Mr. Patterson's practices during the 2007-2009 period.

& # 39; But the GMC cannot reasonably criticize Mr. Goldman for not restricting Mr. Patterson's practices when an IOP failed to impose an order. What material did IOP come up with to justify not imposing restrictions?

"It coincides with a period of time when my two clients are criticized for their decision making."

The panel ordered the GMC and attorneys acting on behalf of the doctors to disclose legal documents before a full hearing next year.

(tagsToTranslate) Dailymail (t) News (t) NHS