Mr [Name Removed] Gynaecologist

PAG made this Freedom of Information request to General Medical Council

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was refused by General Medical Council.

Dear General Medical Council,

Mr [name removed] [name removed] previously of Queen Marys Sidcup, [potentially identifying material removed].Has been under investigation by GMC since 2010 for Bullying and harassment of clinicians, failing in his duty to provide [identifying information removed] [identifying information removed], but more important clinical serious incidents involving patients safety.

(1) What measures have GMC in all this time provided to protect patients knowing that there has been another recent incident where a patient came to harm because of Mr [name removed]

Can you please explain why when Mr [name removed] [name removed] Gynaecologist was under investigation by GMC.

(2) Have GMC treated consultants differently that Mr [name removed] [name removed], who while abusing his [potentially identifying material removed] bullied, harassed , suspended, had investigated and sacked many clinicians.

(3) why were the clinicians that Mr [name removed] and [name removed] had suspended, sacked, dismissed and investigated, been treated differently by GMC, compared to Mr [name removed] who GMC knowingly had even recently caused a serious bladder injury to a patient.

(4) Why do GMC continue to fail act to protect patients and staff from Mr [name removed] [name removed].

(5) As Mr [name removed] [name removed] has been under investigation for trying to ruin the career of so many clinicians, and for so long, how can GMC possible use any evidence as credible evidence against any clinicians cases brought before GMC....."They can not"

Yours faithfully,

PAG

FOI, General Medical Council

Dear Sir/Madam

Your information request F13/5880/EH

Thank you for your email asking for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

We will consider your request and give you the information as soon as we
can, normally within the 20 working-day limit set by the FOIA.  

Please note that there may be some information which we cannot release to
you under the FOIA. If this is the case, we will let you know why and
state the relevant exemptions given in the FOIA. We will also give you
information about how to appeal our decision. 

I have allocated your request to Elizabeth Hiley. If you have any
questions, please contact her on 0161 923 6314 or email
[1][email address]. 

Yours sincerely

Sadie Jones

Information Assistant

[2][email address]

0161 250 6889

 

General Medical Council

3 Hardman Street

Manchester

M3 3AW

 

show quoted sections

Elizabeth Hiley (0161 923 6314), General Medical Council

Our ref: F13/5880/EH
 
Dear PAG
 
Thank you for your email. Your queries have been considered under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
 
The FOIA provides a right of access to information held by a public
authority, subject to certain exemptions. Your requests below are for
explanations, rather than for information held, therefore do not come
within the remit of the FOIA.
 
However, due to the nature of your enquiries, I would like to set out our
position in respect of disclosure of information relating to a doctor's
fitness to practise history, with specific reference to Mr [name removed].
 
When we receive a complaint about a doctor a decision is made by our
Fitness to Practise Directorate on whether an investigation should be
conducted. At the end of an investigation, the case will be considered by
two senior GMC staff (one medical and one non-medical). They can conclude
the case with no further action, issue a warning, agree undertakings or
refer the case to a Fitness to Practise (FTP) Panel. FTP Panel hearings
are usually held in public and it is at this stage that further background
details of the case may be made publicly available. Details of any
restrictions imposed on a doctor’s registration are made publicly
available. At any stage of an investigation we may refer a doctor to an
Interim Orders Panel (IOP). An IOP can suspend or restrict a doctor’s
registration while an investigation continues. Further information about
our investigation process is available on the GMC website at
[1]http://www.gmc-uk.org/concerns/the_inves...
 
Therefore, I can confirm that Mr [name removed] holds full registration, with no
restrictions, and has not been the subject of any FTP Panel hearings. Mr
[name removed]’s publicly available record and registration status can be viewed on
our website at [2]http://www.gmc-uk.org.
 
As to whether or not any complaints have been made against Mr [name removed] which
did not result in a hearing or restrictions on his registration, we are
unable to publicly confirm or deny whether we hold information of this
nature. We consider the exemption at section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA to
apply.
 
Section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA states that the duty to confirm or deny
whether information is held does not apply if to do so would breach any of
the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). We believe that it
is reasonable for doctors to expect that, with regard to complaints which
did not progress to a public hearing or result in any action upon their
registration, whether or not such complaints had been made would be remain
confidential. Therefore, we believe that to confirm or deny the existence
or non-existence of such complaints against Mr [name removed] would breach the
first principle of the DPA, which requires that the processing of personal
data is fair and lawful. We believe that the conditions in Schedule 2 of
the DPA, relating to the processing of personal data, are not met and
therefore the release of this information would be unlawful. 
  
If you have any concerns regarding my response you can write to Julian
Graves, Information Access Manager, at [3][email address]. You can also
complain to the Information Commissioner, the independent regulator of the
FOIA and DPA. Their contact details are available at [4]www.ico.gov.uk.
 
Yours faithfully
 
Elizabeth Hiley
Information Access Officer
General Medical Council
Telephone: 0161 923 6314
Email: [5][email address]
 
 

show quoted sections

Dear Elizabeth Hiley (0161 923 6314),

GMC
Namely [names removed] and others are aware Mr [name removed] has performed surgery that was not needed on patients, as well as making clinical mistakes, GMC are also aware that a professor who was asked to compile a report of "clinical incidents" summed up his report by saying

Following so soon after other operative complications experienced by this Surgeon, whilst of different causation, the Trust may require to further evaluate the surgeon’s competency in undertaking certain operative surgery.
[name removed]
Yours sincerely,

DO GMC still feel it is acceptable to "protect Mr [name removed] rather than protecting patients"??

PAG

Elizabeth Hiley (0161 923 6314), General Medical Council

Dear PAG

Thank you for your email.

You do have a right of appeal against my response. If you wish to do so please set out in writing why you think the decision is wrong and send to Julian Graves, Information Access Manager, at [email address]. As referred to in my last email you also have a right of appeal to the Information Commissioner's Office.

Yours faithfully

Elizabeth Hiley
Information Access Officer
General Medical Council
Telephone: 0161 923 6314
Email: [email address]

show quoted sections