This case is based on a real scenario, with some facts altered to preserve confidentiality.
Dr K, a consultant oncologist, worked at an NHS Trust, while also holding practising privileges at a private hospital. During the period when self-isolation following a positive COVID-19 test was a legal requirement, Dr K developed symptoms of COVID-19 and tested positive.
He informed his NHS Trust of the positive test, and they confirmed that he was expected to self-isolate, as per the restrictions in place at the time and the hospital’s own policy. Dr K did not inform the private hospital of the positive test, although he was aware that their processes in relation to a positive COVID-19 test were the same as those of the NHS hospital, and that he was expected to self-isolate in line with government restrictions.
On what should have been day four of Dr K’s self-isolation period, he attended the private hospital to consult with five patients. He did not inform other staff at the hospital, or the patients, that he had tested positive for COVID-19. A colleague, Dr C, noted that Dr K did not look well, and asked about his health, to which Dr K said he was fine and reassured Dr C that he had taken a COVID-19 test which was negative.
The matter came to light the following day when Dr C, who worked in a different speciality, but the same NHS Trust as Dr K, attempted to contact Dr K in the NHS setting to seek advice about a patient. He was then informed by another colleague that Dr K was partway through a self-isolation period due to COVID-19.
Dr C was mindful that he had seen Dr K working the previous day and considered that there was no option but to inform the private hospital of this. The hospital subsequently referred the matter to the GMC.
The GMC referred Dr K to a tribunal, alleging breach of COVID-19 restrictions and hospital policy, and dishonesty in informing the colleague that he tested negative for COVID-19. It was further alleged that the attendance of Dr K at the hospital put colleagues and patients at increased risk of contracting COVID-19.
The tribunal heard evidence from a number of witnesses, including Dr K, and at the end of the hearing concluded that Dr K’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of misconduct, and imposed a four-month suspension. No review hearing was ordered, and at the end of the suspension Dr K was able to return to work unrestricted, albeit in the NHS setting only, as the private hospital had removed his practising privileges.
In the absence of representation by a defence organisation, the cost of instructing a solicitor to assist with a regulatory or disciplinary matter can be significant. For example, the barrister fees alone incurred in representing Dr K in this matter were more than £18,000.