§ Lord CROOKMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can confirm the Press reports that an unqualified person posing as a doctor was involved in "quite major operations"at Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton, and was subsequently employed at Redhill General Hospital as an orthopaedic registrar; and whether they are satisfied that steps have now been taken to prevent similar occurrences in future.
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I confirm that a man claiming to be a doctor was employed at Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton, as a locum orthopaedic registrar from 13th to 26th October 1977. While he was there he was involved, under close supervision, in no more than three operations to repair fractures. He was subsequently employed at Redhill General Hospital, again as a locum orthopaedic registrar, from 4th to 29th November 1977. The Government are satisfied that they have already taken, and that the two hospitals concerned are now following, steps which should help to prevent a similar occurrence in the future.
§ Lord SEGALMy Lords, can my noble friend confirm whether in the cases of both these locum appointments this unqualified person was the sole applicant? Would not the most effective means of preventing these abuses be to make the posts more attractive so that a pool of applicants could be made available and some competitive element injected into these appointments?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I am not aware that he was the sole applicant. I am aware that he was introduced to Roehampton hospital by a doctor on the staff of that hospital who believed him to be a doctor, and he was in fact allowed to carry on his work as a locum orthopaedic registrar. It was only when he did not produce the proper documents that the hospital was then able to deal with the matter.
§ Lord MACKIE of BENSHIEMy Lords, can the Minister say whether he was better or worse at his work than the qualified doctors?
§ Lord CROOKMy Lords, can the Minister say what the facts are as to the re-employment of this man? He is reported as having taken part in operations at Queen Mary's where there were some irregularities—"and we began to smell a large rat". That being so, he was then taken on at the other hospital within three weeks, where he took part in operations, and was dismissed because of failure to put in a pin during an operation. His employment was justified, according to newspaper reports, by the fact that he had the right documents and answered the questions at the interview because he knew all the jargon.
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I told your Lordships how he came to be introduced to the Roehampton hospital. His work as a surgeon was very closely supervised by the senior registrar who was present the whole of the time in the operating theatre; and this, of course, would minimise any risks to patients. When he was asked to produce the right documents which hospitals require, a certificate of registration together with proof of identity, he failed to do so, and when he was pressed again he said he had put them on the desk of the administrator and they must have been mislaid. This caused a search to be made. When he was told he must produce proof of identity and certificate of registration he left the hospital. He then went to Redhill, but at Redhill the senior doctor soon became concerned about the quality of his work and insisted that before he operated in future he must seek higher authority. He took exception to that and he left the hospital. I have been asked where he is now. Our information is that he is in 447 Canada. The General Medical Council of this country have notified the appropriate medical body there that this man is working under three different names.
§ Lord PLATTMy Lords, surely this man must have had some medical experience. Had he been a medical student and perhaps got as far as the fifth year, or something of that kind, or had he been a male nurse in the operating theatre? He could not possibly bring it off unless he had some medical experience, could he?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, my information is that when he was interviewed he was able to give a very good and what appeared to be a plausible account of his experience in orthopaedic surgery in Australia.
§ Viscount DAVIDSONMy Lords, is it true that he has gone to Canada to become a tree surgeon?
§ Lord SEGALMy Lords, can my noble friend explain to the House what steps have now been taken to prevent a recurrence of this abuse?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, in January 1977 a document was sent round to all the Regional Health Authorities laying down the precise procedures which must be adopted before a person is taken on the medical staff of a hospital. I must say that these procedures were not followed in respect of Roehampton. A further letter has been sent round calling attention to the fact that if these procedures are adopted and hospitals do not use a doctor until he has produced a certificate of registration and been able to show that he is a member of one of the medical defence unions, and has been able to produce evidence of his identity, then this sort of thing should not occur in the future.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, has the noble Lord considered whether a criminal offence has been committed, and whether it is extraditable, and, if not, ought it not to be?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I cannot give an answer to the noble and 448 learned Lord, but I shall obviously take this matter back to my right honourable friend because it is one that ought to be looked into.
§ Lord BALLANTRAEMy Lords, does the noble Lord know to which town this man has gone? Could it be Medicine Hat!