Prof Gillian Needham: gross professional misconduct - GMC aware

Professor Gillian Needham.  Gross, unprofessional, and the subject of a GMC complaint.  The Dame Carol is about to hit the fan.   [Image courtesy of Dr Wayne]

It is now quite clear to Dr Rant that the actions of Professor Gillian Needham, the North of Scotland Dean, in continuing the suspension of Dr Scot Junior are illegal, unjust, perverse, against Department of Health guidelines, against General Medical Council guidance on good medical practice, and grossly unprofessional.

It is no longer possibly to lampoon or satirise her actions.

The story so far:

1. Dr Scot Junior, a well respected and well liked surgeon in Inverness, calls Dame Carol Black a shit on a doctor's discussion website.

2. Prof Elizabeth Paice, london dean and pal Carol Black groupie, calls Prof Gillian Needham, Dr Scot Junior's dean in Highland.

3. Prof Gillian Needham immediately suspends Dr Scot Junior from work, in breach of Department of Health guidelines on suspension:

Exclusion of clinical staff from the workplace is a temporary expedient. Under this framework, exclusion is a precautionary measure and not a disciplinary sanction. Exclusion from work ("suspension") should be reserved for only the most exceptional circumstances.

The purpose of exclusion is:
• to protect the interests of patients or other staff; and/or
• to assist the investigative process when there is a clear risk that the practitioner's presence would impede the gathering of evidence.
It is imperative that exclusion from work is not misused or seen as the only course of action that could be taken. The degree of action must depend on the nature and seriousness on the concerns and on the need to protect patients, the practitioner concerned and/or their colleagues.

and

The Directions make it clear that staff may be suspended and refused contact with their workplace only if they constitute a risk to patients or staff or if it is thought they may tamper with evidence. Otherwise they must be kept in touch, to keep up to date with developments and maintain their skills.

As the complaint is not related to the doctor's clinical work, nor is there any suggestion or allegation that he is in any way a threat to patients, nor is there any chance that he can 'tamper with evidence' whether at work or not, there is no justification for suspension.

4. Senior doctors claim that suspension is a 'neutral' act and that therefore no wrong has been done. This case takes place in Scotland, however under English law, NHS Exposed points out that the senior doctors defending Prof Needham's actions are wrong:

In February 2007 a judge ruled that suspension is not a neutral act and cannot be applied to non clinical duties. The case law can be seen here. [Mezey v South West London and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust] Further judgments are available here and here.

I quote some of the most important extracts :-

The judge states
"I venture to disagree, at least in relation to the employment of a qualified professional in a function which is as much a vocation as a job. Suspension changes the status quo from work to no work, and it inevitably casts a shadow over the employee's competence. Of course this does not mean that it cannot be done, but it is not a neutral act"

5. Reports surfaced from Inverness that the suspension had been lifted and Dr Scot Junior was returning to work. However, when he did not reappear questions started to be asked. Dr Rant received the following information from a source within Highland Health Board:

[Dr Scot Junior] is still suspended, despite local advice to reinstate, regionally needham has blocked his return. The local disciplinary committee and LNC recommended no action to be taken against him, but the deanery has continued the suspension.


Dr Rant is unsure what the LNC is, but it appears to be part of the medical training system. They, and the disciplinary committee, appear to agree with the rest of us: that this suspension should never have happened, and that Dr Scot Junior is not guilty of anything.


So, why has Prof Gillian Needham continued the suspension? Is criticism of the establishment now a crime? Is thinking that the people who made such a mess of medical training last year were idiots now a crime?

No. But clearly any doctor who thinks it is is not fit to practice. Dr Rant thinks Gillian Needham is guilty of gross professional misconduct. Thankfully, Dr Rita Pal, champion of the NHS whistlblower, has reported her to the GMC. (Thank fuck someone is doing something constructive.)

The GMC should strike Needham off before she can do any more damage.




p.s. It should be noted that Elizabeth Paice is also guilty of misconduct by not following normal procedures, as per GMC advice, and reporting her displeasure to DNUK. It should be noted that Prof Paice can't sue Dr Junior for libel because, to our knowledge, he has never made any public comments on Paice - positive or negative. Still, if he did want to call Elizabeth Paice a complete steaming pile of faeces, then Dr Rant will be happy to hear from him.

p.p.s. Oh, and just in case anyone has forgotten, Dr Rant thinks that Dame Carol Black is a huge fucking jobby.