Beat Medical Blog

Jayant Patel found guilty, but who else is to blame?

Posted by Beat Medical

Yesterday, Jayant Patel, the Bundaberg surgeon accused of gross negligence was found guilty of manslaughter and grievous bodily harm.

Appeals will most likely commence from here, but for the families of his victims, it will hopefully be some resolution.

Alongside the news on the case in the media, this article in The Australian was published today. Tony Morris highlights that there are two issues at play in the case - that of Patel's incompetence and the subsequent deaths, and that of the process that enabled him to work unsupervised as the Director of Surgery in a regional QLD hospital.

It was a complex case, with a number of contributing factors. There were so many preventable events that took place before his employment that it is almost impossible to imagine how Patel was granted registration in the first place:

-the recruitment agency did not adequately check the documentaiton
-the medical board did not complete the requisite checks, and granted registration
-the hospital appointed Patel to a position outside of the scope of his medical registration
-there was internal pressure against the 'whistleblower', who brought matters to the attention of the health service


It is absolutely the responsibility of each person in the medical recruitment process to ensure that they scrutinise, and question the veracity of CV's, references, professional documents. If something feels out of place, dig. If it still feels out of place, keep digging.

It is human to be blinded by pressure to find a doctor for shift, position, or job - and create a false gap between what you actually see, and what you want to see. It is the individual responsibility of us all in this industry to speak up if something is not right, and unless you are completely satisfied of a medical professional's competence and background - do not give them the job.

Consider the deaths of Patel's patients, and their families - who have felt the deepest cut of his behaviour and the omissions of his employers. It is up to administrators and recruiters to work towards preventing this from happening ever again.

The medical recruitment company involved dismissed a staff member, and most likely felt a level of corporate shock they never will again. The health service and the medical board were held to account, and a whistleblower's life and career still stands deeply affected by the events.

We ask the same question Tony Morris asks: should there have been other people in the dock?

Click on 'comments' below to have your say