Barros D'Sa

Taken from: The Times (London) of 18th June 2001

Whistleblower consultant faces the sack

Oliver Wright

"A CONSULTANT has been told that he faces dismissal from his job at a teaching hospital after investigating the record of a surgeon whose mortality rates were up to four times, higher than national targets.

Alban Barros D'Sa, an examiner for the Royal College of Surgeons, has been suspended from Walsgrave Hospital in Coventry for nearly two years, despite recommendations from an independent panel that he be reinstated.

He is to go to the High Court today [18 June 2001] to try to prevent the hospital from using documents, including a private letter to his MP, as evidence against him.

Mr Barros D has received the backing of nearly 100 other doctors at Walsgrave who have passed a vote of no confidence in the hospital disciplinary procedures. More than 7,000 supporters have signed a petition calling for his reinstatement.

The hospital has defended the suspension and stressed that proper disciplinary procedures have been followed at all times. We are entirely satisfied that, in full consultation with the hospital trust board, we have acted correctly at all times, David Laughton, the chief executive, said.

Mr Barros D'Sa, 63, a consultant general surgeon at Walsgrave, was suspended in October1999 shortly after raising concerns about a fellow surgeon whose mortality rate, he claimed, was significantly higher than that of other colleagues operating in the same area. It was later shown, after an audit, that in one procedure the surgeon had a death rate of one patient in five while national targets suggested the death rate should be one in 20. Shortly after raising his concerns, Mr Barros D was accused of intimidating another doctor who worked with the surgeon and of inappropriate behaviour. He was suspended and an independent panel was set up to investigate his behaviour. The panel found that he been at fault but made clear that it did not consider it a dismissible offence.

Mr Barros D is a longstanding consultant who has high standards of skill, patient care, and personal and professional integrity, the panel concluded. We have no doubt at all that dismissal would be wholly unjustified and could not be regarded as an appropriate disciplinary measure in this case.

Despite the recommendation the hospital refused to reinstate Mr Barros D'Sa and in February went to the High Court to try to use other evidence, not heard by the independent panel, as part of its case against him. The move was denied by the judge, who criticised Walsgrave's handling of the case. Today hearing is an appeal by the hospital against the earlier court decision.

Hospital sources said yesterday that they believed they were fully justified in taking the action they had. There are procedures for dealing with concerns about colleagues and Mr Barros completely failed to follow these, they said. There is a large amount of evidence not heard by the inquiry panel which we believe is relevant in the disciplinary procedures against him."

For later reports and a link to the Court of Appeal transcript, see Hospital suspensions continue (2002-04).