A GMC Fiasco
The Henshall case revolves around the concerns raised by Carl and Deborah Henshall. Their concerns related to their perception of events at North Staffordshire NHS Trust in 1992.
Over many years, the Henshalls [ with the assistance of Penny Mellor] have relentlessly pursued Drs Southall, Samuels and Spencer of North Staffordshire NHS Trust. The Henshalls have used and abused the media to their own advantage on each occasion. They were also responsible for a vexatious complaint against Dr Keith Prowse of North Staffordshire NHS Trust.
The CNEP trial, challenged by the Henshalls was vindicted by the Nottingham Study
Over the years, the General Medical Council has spent large amounts of doctor's subscription funds assessing this [out of time] complaint. This has been done while sacrificing other worthy cases that deserves the GMC's attention for the public interest.
Fitness to Practise Panel
Planned dates: 8 May to 11 July 2008
St James’s Building, 79 Oxford Street, Manchester, M1 6FQ
The Fitness to Practise Panel will meet at St James’s Building, 79 Oxford Street, Manchester, M1 6FQ to consider a case under the Professional Conduct Committee Rules of serious professional misconduct.
Name: Dr Martin Philip SAMUELS
GMC Reference Number: 2732178
Area of practice: Staffordshire
Name: Dr Stephen Andrew SPENCER
GMC Reference Number: 2305893
Area of practice: Staffordshire
Name: David Patrick SOUTHALL
GMC Reference Number: 1491739
Area of practice: Staffordshire
Dr Samuels
It is alleged that Dr Samuels was practising as a paediatrician at the Royal Brompton and North Staffordshire Hospitals and a trial was commenced in 1990 to determine the benefit or otherwise of continuous negative extrathoracic pressure (CNEP) in babies with respiratory failure (“the CNEP trial”). It is alleged that in his role as an administrator of the CNEP trial he failed to ensure that appropriate procedures were in place to obtain informed parental consent to the patients’ participation in the trial. It is further alleged that his actions in this regard were inappropriate, inadequate, not in the patients’ best interests and likely to bring the medical profession into disrepute.
Dr Spencer
It is alleged that Dr Spencer was practising as a Consultant Paediatrician at North Staffordshire Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent and on 29 November 1989, he applied to the Ethics Committee of the North Staffordshire Royal Infirmary (“the Ethics Committee”) for approval of a trial entitled “A randomised controlled trial of continuous sub-atmospheric (negative) extra thoracic pressure (CNEP) in neonatal respiratory failure.” (“the CNEP trial”). It is alleged that his actions in this regard were inappropriate, inadequate, not in the patients’ best interests and likely to bring the medical profession into disrepute.
It is further alleged that on 14 December 1992 Patient A was born by Caesarian section at the North Staffordshire Maternity Hospital and that following her birth, Patient A was entered into the CNEP trial. It is alleged that during his involvement in Patient A’s care,
he failed to ensure that the appropriate steps were taken to treat Patient A’s hypoxia until 12:30pm on 15 December 1992 and that he failed to ensure that appropriate and regular blood pressure checks were undertaken and/or recorded in her notes. It is alleged that his actions in this regard were inappropriate, inadequate, not in the patients’ best interests and likely to bring the medical profession into disrepute.
Dr Southall
It is alleged that Dr Southall was practising as a Consultant Paediatrician at the Royal Brompton and North Staffordshire Hospitals and that on 29 November 1989, he applied to the Ethics Committee of the North Staffordshire Royal Infirmary (“the Ethics Committee”) for approval of a trial entitled “A randomised controlled trial of continuous sub-atmospheric (negative) extra thoracic pressure (CNEP) in neonatal respiratory failure.” (“the CNEP trial”). It is alleged that the application inaccurately described the procedures that would be applied to each patient and/or, the number of patients that would be required for the trial. The design of the trial was such that it did not sufficiently minimise the possibility of bias. It is alleged that his actions in this regard were inappropriate, inadequate, not in the patients’ best interests and likely to bring the medical profession into disrepute
In accordance with Rule 41(2) of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004, the Panel may decide to exclude the public from the proceedings or any part of the proceedings, where they consider that the circumstances of the case outweigh the public interest in holding the hearing in public.
These charges were altered mid hearing following a statistics report confirming the high standard of practise by the doctors.
This was the final charge sheet
8 May 2008 a Fitness to Practise Panel will consider the case of:
No comments:
Post a Comment