Surgeon in legal bid to clear name

Sep 24 2008 by Paul Loraine, The Journal

A SURGEON working in the North East who was criticised over his follow-up of a cancer patient has launched a High Court bid to clear his name.

Lawyers for consultant gastro-intestinal surgeon Stephen Attwood – who now works with the Northumbria Healthcare NHS Trust – say he endured “manifest unfairness”.

His lawyers say he did nothing that would not have been approved by a “responsible body of medical opinion” and findings against him were “manifestly unsound”. Mr Atwood, who formerly worked at Salford’s Hope Hospital, is challenging the criticisms levelled against him by the Health Service Commissioner, commonly known as the health service ombudsman.

The ombudsman’s investigation was into a complaint made against the Salford Royal Hospital NHS Trust relating to the treatment of cancer patient John Ambrose.

Mr Ambrose, 68, was suffering from oesophageal cancer and was operated on by Mr Atwood in October 2001.

After being discharged, he attended as an out-patient twice, in December 2001 and January 2002, but died on January 20, 2002, five days after his final hospital visit.

The complaint was made by his daughter Susan Ambrose and her husband.

Philip Havers QC, representing Mr Atwood, said in his report on the complaint in March 2006, an investigating officer appointed by the ombudsman made “very serious criticisms” of the surgeon, although the complaint was not against him but the NHS Trust. Although he said the in-patient care given to Mr Ambrose had been “reasonable”, the investigator expressed serious concerns about alleged shortcomings in Mr Attwood’s management of his post-operative discharge from hospital.

Among other things, the investigator said more should have been done to investigate the causes of Mr Ambrose’s weight loss and that it was made clear to him that Mr Ambrose’s condition was “neither properly monitored, nor effectively followed up”.

In his report, the investigator also said there was no evidence that Mr Ambrose had been made aware of the potential seriousness of his condition and of the options available to him.

He said Mr Ambrose had been “denied information which would have allowed him to make informed choices about the time he had left and to discuss those with his family, had he so wished.” Mr Havers told Mr Justice Burnett yesterday that the investigator had “gone out of his way” to criticise Mr Atwood, although the complaint was not against him.

He argued that Mr Atwood’s conduct was backed by a “responsible body of medical opinion” and that the investigator had applied the wrong legal test in criticising him.

Attacking the “trenchant criticisms” of the consultant as “manifestly unsound”, the QC said the investigator’s report could not withstand analysis.

The investigator, he told the court, has “misunderstood” the evidence and had given no reasons for rejecting the views of the trust’s own expert witness.

Mr Havers added that Mr Atwood’s case is of “real concern to clinicians” as the sort of criticisms made against him “may have serious consequences for their reputations and even for their careers”.

The health service ombudsman is defending Mr Attwood’s judicial review challenge, denying the investigator’s report was legally flawed.

The hearing continues.