A surgeon was allowed to operate on patients by an NHS trust even though he was under investigation over at least 10 deaths.
 |
| Mr Sarker's death rates were twice as high as other doctors in similar fields |
Lawyers acting for some of Sudip Sarker’s patients say he performed surgery on
them without them being told there were concerns about his practice.
Mr Sarker, 44, was referred to the Royal College of Surgeons in July last
year. Its investigation found his death rates were twice as high as other
doctors in similar fields and that one in five of his patients had to be
readmitted following surgery.
He was however, only suspended in October, and on Monday Worcestershire Acute
Hospitals NHS Trust opened a hotline for patients and families. It has
already received 49 complaints.
At the same time, the families of five patients have instructed lawyers to
investigate potential failings in care by the trust and Mr Sarker, a
consultant specialising in keyhole surgery for colon cancer.
A coroner will also hold a joint inquest into the deaths of three of his
patients: William Jones, 84, Daphne Taylor, 81, and Jean Thomas, 80, who all
died last year after surgery at the Alexandra Hospital in Redditch, Worcs.
Mr Jones’ family only learnt that the hospital had concerns about Mr Sarker
after an original inquest into his death was dramatically halted midway
through when the coroner was informed of the trust’s investigation.
Mr Jones’ son, Simon Middup-Jones, 52, said: “You put your trust in these people, you presume they are very qualified and very capable. You put your trust in them but unfortunately I don’t think we should have.”
Mr Sarker's colleagues first raised concerns in June last year.
The trust allowed him to continue to operate under supervision. At the same time, it commission the RCS report.
It is understood that the RCS examined the cases of 75 of Mr Sarker’s patients and compared them to the cases of two other doctors working in similar fields.
The RCS found that Mr Sarker had an eight per cent mortality rate, with six patients dying within 28 days of surgery. The two sample doctors had three deaths between them in the same period.
The investigation also found that Mr Sarker’s patient readmission rate was more than three times that of the other two doctors.
In addition, the RCS recommended that further checks be carried out on Mr Sarker’s online CV, which allegedly included a claim that he won a “distinction in surgery” prize which does not exist.
The findings of the RCS report remained concealed for nearly a year until details were leaked by a whistleblower.
The trust admitted it allowed Mr Sarker to operate on patients without telling them of its concerns and investigations.
It only disclosed the existence of the report this month and refuses to publish it on legal advice.
Jennifer Emerson, a solicitor at law firm Irwin Mitchell, representing a number of families who have lost loved ones, said: "It is appalling that despite a recommendation by the Royal College of Surgeons the ongoing investigation has not being made public."
One of Mr Sarker's patients, Mrs Thomas, a widow, died in September.
She had been diagnosed with colon cancer in May and underwent an operation at the Alexandra Hospital, performed by Mr Sarker.
However it is believed the surgery failed to take out all the cancer and Mrs Thomas needed follow-up surgery two weeks later.
She was readmitted to hospital three more times before dying of suspected multiple organ failure.
Marten Coates, a crown court judge and close friend of Mrs Thomas who is managing her estate, has instructed lawyers Irwin Mitchell to investigate the trust.
He has also reported Mr Sarker to the General Medical Council, the medical watchdog, which has confirmed it is investigating the surgeon.
It placed restrictions on his licence to practise in February.
Judge Coates said: "The trust we now know notified the Royal College of Surgeons of its concerns about Sudip Sarker's practice in July 2012.
"Jean Thomas was an inpatient on their wards after that date. No one told Jean or those close to her."
He added: "Sudip Sarker led Jean to believe that it would be a quick operation, a straightforward keyhole procedure and the cancer would be removed. She would be discharged and that would be the end of her case.
"But in fact my understanding is that the procedure chosen and performed by Sudip Sarker was wholly inappropriate."
A second patient, Mr Jones, died at the hospital in June last year after an operation to remove a part of his intestine.
Mr Middup-Jones said his father, who ran a joinery firm in Bewdley in Worcestershire, was “fit and strong” for his age when he started to feel unwell in February last year.
He visited his GP and was later referred to Mr Sarker, who confirmed that he had early stages of rectal cancer and would need surgery. He underwent a colostomy at Alexandra Hospital on May 30.
After the operation Mr Jones was taken to intensive care to recover.
Mr Jones said his father seemed to be “rallying” and was looking forward to being moved onto a ward but on June 5 his condition deteriorated and he died the next day. The post-mortem noted cause of death as septic shock from a wound infection.
Mr Jones left his wife, Jane, four children and seven grandchildren.
His family said that initially, although they were shocked by his death, they accepted that any surgery carried risks.
It was only during the inquest into Mr Jones’ death earlier this year that they discovered the surgeon who carried out the operation was under investigation.
Mr Middup-Jones said the coroner was questioning Mr Sarker when a court official interrupted the hearing to say there was a phone call.
Mr Middup-Jones said: “When the coroner returned, she turned to Mr Sarker and said 'am I correct in understanding you are under investigation for your methodology and practices?’
“It was a complete bombshell, you could have heard a pin drop.
“It was the first we knew anything about it.”
Mr Jones’ family has also instructed Irwin Mitchell Solicitors to examine if they have a claim for medical negligence.
Lindsay Tomlinson, associate solicitor specialising in medical law at Irwin Mitchell, said: “We have serious concerns about the death rates and surgery complication figures we have seen in the news but are equally concerned by the fact that it seems that colleagues were so concerned about Mr Sarker that they reported him to the RCS yet he was allowed to continue working for the Trust for a further three months."
Worcester Acute Services Hospital Trust said it had taken advice about telling Dr Sarker's patients of the investigation into him.
A Trust spokesman said: "In this specific case the Trust considered this matter with NCAS (National Clinical Assessment Service) to determine what measures were required to maintain patient safety. In those areas where the surgeon's practice had been questioned the critical responsibility was transferred to a supervising surgeon.”
Mr Jones’ son, Simon Middup-Jones, 52, said: “You put your trust in these people, you presume they are very qualified and very capable. You put your trust in them but unfortunately I don’t think we should have.”
Mr Sarker's colleagues first raised concerns in June last year.
The trust allowed him to continue to operate under supervision. At the same time, it commission the RCS report.
It is understood that the RCS examined the cases of 75 of Mr Sarker’s patients and compared them to the cases of two other doctors working in similar fields.
The RCS found that Mr Sarker had an eight per cent mortality rate, with six patients dying within 28 days of surgery. The two sample doctors had three deaths between them in the same period.
The investigation also found that Mr Sarker’s patient readmission rate was more than three times that of the other two doctors.
In addition, the RCS recommended that further checks be carried out on Mr Sarker’s online CV, which allegedly included a claim that he won a “distinction in surgery” prize which does not exist.
The findings of the RCS report remained concealed for nearly a year until details were leaked by a whistleblower.
The trust admitted it allowed Mr Sarker to operate on patients without telling them of its concerns and investigations.
It only disclosed the existence of the report this month and refuses to publish it on legal advice.
Jennifer Emerson, a solicitor at law firm Irwin Mitchell, representing a number of families who have lost loved ones, said: "It is appalling that despite a recommendation by the Royal College of Surgeons the ongoing investigation has not being made public."
One of Mr Sarker's patients, Mrs Thomas, a widow, died in September.
She had been diagnosed with colon cancer in May and underwent an operation at the Alexandra Hospital, performed by Mr Sarker.
However it is believed the surgery failed to take out all the cancer and Mrs Thomas needed follow-up surgery two weeks later.
She was readmitted to hospital three more times before dying of suspected multiple organ failure.
Marten Coates, a crown court judge and close friend of Mrs Thomas who is managing her estate, has instructed lawyers Irwin Mitchell to investigate the trust.
He has also reported Mr Sarker to the General Medical Council, the medical watchdog, which has confirmed it is investigating the surgeon.
It placed restrictions on his licence to practise in February.
Judge Coates said: "The trust we now know notified the Royal College of Surgeons of its concerns about Sudip Sarker's practice in July 2012.
"Jean Thomas was an inpatient on their wards after that date. No one told Jean or those close to her."
He added: "Sudip Sarker led Jean to believe that it would be a quick operation, a straightforward keyhole procedure and the cancer would be removed. She would be discharged and that would be the end of her case.
"But in fact my understanding is that the procedure chosen and performed by Sudip Sarker was wholly inappropriate."
A second patient, Mr Jones, died at the hospital in June last year after an operation to remove a part of his intestine.
Mr Middup-Jones said his father, who ran a joinery firm in Bewdley in Worcestershire, was “fit and strong” for his age when he started to feel unwell in February last year.
He visited his GP and was later referred to Mr Sarker, who confirmed that he had early stages of rectal cancer and would need surgery. He underwent a colostomy at Alexandra Hospital on May 30.
After the operation Mr Jones was taken to intensive care to recover.
Mr Jones said his father seemed to be “rallying” and was looking forward to being moved onto a ward but on June 5 his condition deteriorated and he died the next day. The post-mortem noted cause of death as septic shock from a wound infection.
Mr Jones left his wife, Jane, four children and seven grandchildren.
His family said that initially, although they were shocked by his death, they accepted that any surgery carried risks.
It was only during the inquest into Mr Jones’ death earlier this year that they discovered the surgeon who carried out the operation was under investigation.
Mr Middup-Jones said the coroner was questioning Mr Sarker when a court official interrupted the hearing to say there was a phone call.
Mr Middup-Jones said: “When the coroner returned, she turned to Mr Sarker and said 'am I correct in understanding you are under investigation for your methodology and practices?’
“It was a complete bombshell, you could have heard a pin drop.
“It was the first we knew anything about it.”
Mr Jones’ family has also instructed Irwin Mitchell Solicitors to examine if they have a claim for medical negligence.
Lindsay Tomlinson, associate solicitor specialising in medical law at Irwin Mitchell, said: “We have serious concerns about the death rates and surgery complication figures we have seen in the news but are equally concerned by the fact that it seems that colleagues were so concerned about Mr Sarker that they reported him to the RCS yet he was allowed to continue working for the Trust for a further three months."
Worcester Acute Services Hospital Trust said it had taken advice about telling Dr Sarker's patients of the investigation into him.
A Trust spokesman said: "In this specific case the Trust considered this matter with NCAS (National Clinical Assessment Service) to determine what measures were required to maintain patient safety. In those areas where the surgeon's practice had been questioned the critical responsibility was transferred to a supervising surgeon.”
No comments:
Post a Comment