This case was reviewed on the papers, with the agreement of both parties, by a Legally Qualified Chair.

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "This case was reviewed on the papers, with the agreement of both parties, by a Legally Qualified Chair."

Marianna Robbins
5 years ago
Views:

PUBLIC RECORD Date: 19 December 2018 Medical Practitioner s name: Dr Hadiza BAWA-GARBA GMC reference number: 6080659 Primary medical qualification: Type of case Conviction/ Caution MB ChB 2003

1 PUBLIC RECORD Date: 19 December 2018 Medical Practitioner s name: Dr Hadiza BAWA-GARBA GMC reference number: Primary medical qualification: Type of case Conviction/ Caution MB ChB 2003 University of Leicester Outcome on impairment Impaired Summary of outcome Suspension for 6 months Review hearing directed Tribunal/Legally Qualified Chair: Legally Qualified Chair: Mr Stephen Killen Review on the Papers This case was reviewed on the papers, with the agreement of both parties, by a Legally Qualified Chair. Determination Background and history 1. I have noted the background to this case, which was first considered by a in February and June 2017 ( the 2017 Tribunal ). Dr Bawa-Garba was both present and represented throughout the course of that hearing. 2. I do not intend to rehearse the full history of this matter, which has been outlined in detail by the 2017 Tribunal in its determination and by both the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal in those Courts respective judgments (outlined in brief at paragraphs 14 18, below). The background to the events giving rise to this case can, however, be summarised as follows: 1

2 a. Patient A a six year old boy died on 18 February 2011, following his admission to the Children s Assessment Unit ( CAU ) at Leicester Royal Infirmary, after a referral by his GP; b. On the day of Patient A s admission and untimely death, Dr Bawa-Garba a specialist registrar in year six of her post-graduate training (ST6) was the most senior doctor present in the CAU; c. On initial examination of Patient A, Dr Bawa-Garba made an incorrect diagnosis of gastro-enteritis with moderate dehydration, when Patient A in fact had sepsis; d. Dr Bawa-Garba did not take action in respect of a clinical reading which ought to have been a clear indicator for a diagnosis of sepsis; e. She failed to review the results of investigations or prescribe antibiotics in a timely fashion and she did not seek input from more senior staff; f. Dr Bawa-Garba failed to document the need to discontinue a medication in Patient A s initial notes, which resulted in Patient A incorrectly being given a further dose of that medication; and g. Although it was ultimately determined not to have contributed to Patient A s death, Dr Bawa-Garba mistakenly interrupted the resuscitation of Patient A while medical staff were responding to a crash-call, causing efforts at resuscitation to cease for a period of between 30 seconds and two minutes. 3. As a result of those events outlined at paragraph 2, above, Dr Bawa-Garba was, on 4 November 2015, convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of gross negligence. She was subsequently sentenced on 14 December 2015 to 24 months imprisonment suspended for 24 months. The 2017 Tribunal 4. On considering the matter, the 2017 Tribunal determined that Dr Bawa-Garba s fitness to practise was impaired as a result of her conviction. It considered it clear that Dr Bawa-Garba s actions fell far below the standards expected of competent doctor at her level. It determined that those actions and Dr Bawa-Garba s ensuing conviction brought the profession into disrepute and breached a fundamental tenet of the medical profession relating to good clinical care. 2

3 5. Having reached its conclusion in respect of impairment, the 2017 Tribunal went on to consider the appropriate sanction, if any, to impose on Dr Bawa-Garba s registration. 6. The 2017 Tribunal determined that Dr Bawa-Garba s clinical failings, serious as they were, were capable of being remedied. Indeed, it determined that, at the time of the hearing in 2017, she had undergone significant remediation. 7. The 2017 Tribunal noted that no concerns had been raised in respect of Dr Bawa-Garba s fitness to practise prior to the events of 18 February It also noted that, following the death of Patient A, Dr Bawa-Garba continued to practise without further incident or concerns. The 2017 Tribunal considered that the risk of Dr Bawa-Garba putting another patient at unwarranted risk of harm in the future was low. 8. The 2017 Tribunal had regard to the witness evidence of Dr B, Consultant Neonatologist. This evidence detailed multiple systemic failures which were identified in a Trust investigation into the events of 18 February The 2017 Tribunal determined that whilst Dr Bawa-Garba s actions fell far short of the standards expected and were a causative factor in the early death of Patient A, they took place in the context of wider failings outside of Dr Bawa-Garba s control. 9. The 2017 Tribunal accepted Dr B s evidence that Dr Bawa-Garba had reflected deeply and had demonstrated significant and substantial insight. It stated, however, that it was unable to conclude that Dr Bawa-Garba had complete insight into her actions as it did not hear evidence from her directly. 10. The 2017 Tribunal had regard to the judgment in the case of Bijl v General Medical Council in which the Court was of the view that the career of an otherwise good doctor should not be sacrificed in order to satisfy a public demand for blame and punishment. 11. Ultimately, in light of the above and in all the circumstances of Dr Bawa-Garba s case, the 2017 Tribunal determined that a fully informed and reasonable member of the public would view suspension as an appropriate sanction. It considered that the goal of maintaining public confidence in the profession would be satisfied by the suspension of Dr Bawa-Garba s registration. 12. Taking into account the over-arching objective and the fact that Dr Bawa-Garba remained at that time subject to a suspended custodial sentence, the 2017 Tribunal determined to suspend Dr Bawa-Garba s registration for the maximum available period of 12 months. 3

4 13. The 2017 Tribunal directed that, prior to the conclusion of the period of suspension, Dr Bawa-Garba s case would be reviewed by a Tribunal and that, for the purposes of that review, Dr Bawa-Garba may wish to submit: Evidence that she has kept her medical knowledge up to date; Evidence that she has reflected on the Tribunal s findings and further evidence of reflection and insight into her actions; Up to date references and testimonials; and Any other evidence that Dr Bawa-Garba feels may be relevant. General Medical Council Appeal 14. The General Medical Council ( GMC ) appealed the 2017 Tribunal s decision to impose a period of 12 months suspension on Dr Bawa-Garba s registration. It considered that the circumstances of the case called for a sanction of erasure from the medical register. 15. On 25 January 2018, the Divisional Court issued a written judgment, substituting the sanction of suspension with that of erasure from the medical register. 16. The Court considered, among other things, that in reaching its determinations the 2017 Tribunal had not respected the verdict of the jury in Dr Bawa-Garba s criminal case which had found that her failings were truly exceptionally bad. The Divisional Court considered that the 2017 Tribunal, having considered systemic failing or failings of others and personal mitigation which had already been considered by the jury, came to its own, unstated view that she was less culpable than the verdict of the jury established. The Divisional Court also considered that the only sanction properly and reasonably open to the 2017 was that of erasure. Dr Bawa-Garba Appeal 17. Dr Bawa-Garba appealed the decision of the Divisional Court to the Court of Appeal. On 13 August 2018, the Court of Appeal issued its judgment, clarifying and distinguishing between the different roles of criminal courts and disciplinary tribunals. The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the Divisional Court, thereby restoring Dr Bawa-Garba to the medical register and re-instating the original sanction of suspension which was imposed by the 2017 Tribunal. 18. In its decision, the Court commented at paragraph 87, as follows: Undoubtedly, there are some cases where the facts are such that the most severe sanction, erasure, is the only proper and reasonable sanction. This is not one of them. Once it is understood that it was permissible for the Tribunal to take into account the full context of 4

5 This Review Current Impairment [Patient A s] death, including the range of persons bearing responsibility for that tragedy and the systemic failings of the Trust, as well as the other matters relied upon by Dr Bawa-Garba, and that the Tribunal plainly had in mind its overriding obligation to protect the public for the future, in the tri-partite sense stated in section 1(1B) of [the Medical Act 1983], it is impossible to say that the suspension sanction imposed by the Tribunal was not one properly open to it and that the only sanction properly and reasonably available was erasure. 19. Dr Bawa-Garba and the GMC have agreed that this review should be considered on the papers in accordance with Rule 21B of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules They have provided agreed terms of an order which they propose that I could make. 20. I have considered all of the evidence presented to me, and the agreed submissions made on behalf of Dr Bawa-Garba and by the GMC. In those submissions, the parties agree that Dr Bawa-Garba s fitness to practise remains impaired by reason of her conviction and that her registration should be subject to a further period of suspension for 6 months. 21. I have taken into account that, since the original order was made on Dr Bawa-Garba s registration on 13 June 2017, although the legal issues in the case have been subject to appeal and further appeal, little appears to have changed in terms of Dr Bawa-Garba s fitness to practise. I have noted that Dr Bawa-Garba has not produced any of the following for the purposes of this review: Evidence that she has kept her medical knowledge up to date; Evidence that she has reflected on the Tribunal s findings and further evidence of reflection and insight into her actions; Up to date references and testimonials; or Any other evidence that Dr Bawa-Garba feels may be relevant. 22. I have noted that Dr Bawa-Garba has indicated, via her legal representatives, that she feels unable to attend a public hearing at present due to personal circumstances, XXX. 23. Taking the above into account and in the circumstances as they stand today, I have therefore determined that Dr Bawa-Garba s fitness to practise remains currently impaired by reason of her conviction. Sanction 5

6 24. In reaching my decision on sanction, I have taken account of the Sanctions Guidance. I have borne in mind that the purpose of a sanction is not to be punitive, but to protect patients and the wider public interest, although it may have a punitive effect. 25. I have applied the principle of proportionality, weighing Dr Bawa-Garba s own interests with the public interest. The public interest includes amongst other things, the protection of patients, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, and declaring and upholding of proper standards of conduct and behaviour. 26. Having again considered all of the evidence presented to me, together with the submissions of the parties, I am satisfied that, in the circumstances as they stand today, a further period of suspension is appropriate and proportionate and would be sufficient to protect the public and the public interest. 27. I have therefore determined that Dr Bawa-Garba s registration be suspended for a further period of six months following the expiry of the current order. 28. In reaching this decision, I have taken into account the current position, whereby little appears to have changed from the position existing in June 2017 and where no evidence is currently available to address the remaining concerns of the 2017 Tribunal as to Dr Bawa-Garba s fitness to practise. This further period should permit Dr Bawa-Gawa some further time to address the personal issues, XXX, which her representatives referred to and to address those matters which the 2017 Tribunal outlined in its determination. 29. The effect of this direction is that, unless Dr Bawa-Garba exercises her right of appeal, the period of suspension will take effect from the date upon which the previous order would otherwise expire. The current order of suspension will remain in place until the appeal period has ended, or in the event that she does appeal, that appeal is decided. A note explaining Dr Bawa-Garba s right of appeal will be provided to her. 30. For the purposes of the next review hearing, I would recommend that Dr Bawa-Garba addresses those matters listed in paragraphs 13 and 21, above. 31. Notification of this decision will be served on Dr Bawa-Garba in accordance with the Medical Act 1983, as amended. Confirmed Date 19 December 2018 Mr Stephen Killen, Chair 6

PUBLIC RECORD. Record of Determinations Medical Practitioners Tribunal

PUBLIC RECORD. Record of Determinations Medical Practitioners Tribunal PUBLIC RECORD Dates: 20/02/2017 22/02/2017 & 12/06/2017 13/06/2017 Medical Practitioner s name: Dr Hadiza BAWA-GARBA GMC reference number: 6080659 Primary medical qualification: Type of case New - Conviction