Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
Patient centred

Nobles Hospital

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

I never read the Daily Mail, you assume that I do, is that a lack of introspection on my behalf of a massive incorrect assumption on yours?

 

Edited by Manximus Aururaneus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

You must be proud to have the 'Grin like an idiot' emoji invented just for you.

No need for that. You seem to take yourself and your views far too seriously and the whole thread above ranting at Patient Centred and demanding they name themselves is just insane. Then you go on about the fact that the mods should take posts down when it’s been a very widely circulated case that’s appeared in at least 4 or 5 mainstream news sources which posters have linked for you. This is an Internet forum full of a wide range of people using largely childish avatars. I don't know why you seem to take it all so seriously to the point of being so threatening and confrontational to PC for what was said. If you’re not happy about what Patient Centred said then report the post and the mods will take action if there is any to be taken. But demanding that they reveal themselves, and saying they must be a Dr and therefore have broken GMC rules, and that the forum could be sued as a result is just totally over the top.

Edited by thesultanofsheight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is time to draw a line under this apparent "axe grinding" and move on. If PC is genuinely concerned about patient safety, he/she should take it up directly with the GMC instead of sniping anonymously here. There are much much bigger fish to fry at Noble's

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dr. Grumpy said:

It is time to draw a line under this apparent "axe grinding" and move on. If PC is genuinely concerned about patient safety, he/she should take it up directly with the GMC instead of sniping anonymously here. There are much much bigger fish to fry at Noble's

I think it's more than just axe-grinding.  The accusations against Dr Byrne are pretty serious ones:

Quote

 

Allegation

The tribunal will inquire into the allegation that between 2007 and 2016, Dr Byrne acted as Patient A’s treating psychiatrist and/or care coordinator, during which time he engaged in an inappropriate relationship with Patient A, including on one occasion entering Patient A’s house unannounced and also giving Patient A gifts. It is alleged that Dr Byrne’s actions were sexually motivated.

It is further alleged that between June 2012 and June 2013 Dr Byrne engaged in a sexual relationship with Patient A. It is alleged that he failed to record any intimacy in her medical records; report any intimacy to his employer and/or colleagues and record accurate and appropriate details of consultations with Patient A in her medical records. It is alleged that at all material times Patient A was vulnerable as a result of her mental health.

 

This isn't just some inappropriate out-of-hours shenanigans, he's accused of carrying on this relationship during working hours and using the 'treatment' to cover it up.  And most critically of a patient who is vulnerable and possibly being exploited.  I'm very surprised to hear that he hasn't been suspended.  Though it's possible he is only engaged in administrative duties, even that could be inappropriate given the allegation of  dishonest record-keeping.

But (as I keep on saying) the real puzzler here is what is happening to this case.  It has been suspended since July - there's no evidence the planned November continuation took place.  No further date seems to have been set.  There's only one other case in the same position and that's had four sittings since September.  Clearly this is not the normal way that GMC tribunals take place.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Innocent until found guilty :shuriken:   this case should not even be in the public domain and the constant airing of it is pathetic.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, hissingsid said:

Innocent until found guilty :shuriken:   this case should not even be in the public domain and the constant airing of it is pathetic.

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

I think it's more than just axe-grinding.  The accusations against Dr Byrne are pretty serious ones:

This isn't just some inappropriate out-of-hours shenanigans, he's accused of carrying on this relationship during working hours and using the 'treatment' to cover it up.  And most critically of a patient who is vulnerable and possibly being exploited.  I'm very surprised to hear that he hasn't been suspended.  Though it's possible he is only engaged in administrative duties, even that could be inappropriate given the allegation of  dishonest record-keeping.

But (as I keep on saying) the real puzzler here is what is happening to this case.  It has been suspended since July - there's no evidence the planned November continuation took place.  No further date seems to have been set.  There's only one other case in the same position and that's had four sittings since September.  Clearly this is not the normal way that GMC tribunals take place.  

Agreed. 
I have emailed the GMC. Their reply was that the cases date was changed and no new hearing date has been made yet. They haven’t answered why this is the case or what the timescale for resolution is. 
this is clearly not good for any doctor with something like this hanging over them. 
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well now, I had a great experience, as usual. at the hospital. Within five minutes of my appointment time. Everybody involved very professional, kind and explaining everything they were about to do.

As I've said many, many times I have had one bad experience in all of the island hospitals over all the years and that was due to an extremely arrogant consultant who seemed to forget that some of us are at least as qualified in our own areas as he is in his, probably have more life experience and expect a little bit of respect from everyone irrespective of who they think they are.

I repeat, on the whole our health service is as good as can be expected.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dilligaf said:

Why?

Both the GMC and Noble's Patient Safety Directorate must have carried out a risk assessment and concluded that this doctor was safe to continue working. They will have taken all available information into account whilst conducting the risk assessment. If PC has some information that is not available to the GMC and Noble's, he has a duty to disclose them, to the GMC at least!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dr. Grumpy said:

. If PC has some information that is not available to the GMC and Noble's, he has a duty to disclose them, to the GMC at least!

How do you know that he/she hasn't already done that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

How do you know that he/she hasn't already done that?

I don't. If they had, I'm sure the GMC would have taken that into account when deciding whether to allow the doctor to continue practicing

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patient centred said:

I have emailed the GMC. Their reply was that the cases date was changed and no new hearing date has been made yet. They haven’t answered why this is the case or what the timescale for resolution is. 
this is clearly not good for any doctor with something like this hanging over them. 

It's a real puzzle.  The GMC handles hundred of cases a year (over 400 in the last 12 months) and, while adjournments aren't unknown, I can't find another one this long without a new date.  The way the tribunal does the hearings is much more flexible than a normal law court and they will often interview witnesses by phone and don't require the accused to be present or even represented.  So the usual reasons why cases might be deferred don't apply.  The only reason I can think is if the Manx police have told them they are investigating Byrne for criminal charges over the same conduct, but I'm not sure that would be possible and nothing seems to have happened in the last six months.  It's a mystery.

2 hours ago, hissingsid said:

Innocent until found guilty :shuriken:   this case should not even be in the public domain and the constant airing of it is pathetic.

But this isn't a criminal case.  Effectively it's an employment tribunal and the standards of proof and evidence are different.  So innocent until guilty doesn't apply because the doctor isn't found to be either.  Instead the tribunal decides whether they should be allowed to continue to practice medicine, based on the allegations but also other factors (such as if they have kept their medical skills up to date).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

It's a real puzzle.  The GMC handles hundred of cases a year (over 400 in the last 12 months) and, while adjournments aren't unknown, I can't find another one this long without a new date.  The way the tribunal does the hearings is much more flexible than a normal law court and they will often interview witnesses by phone and don't require the accused to be present or even represented.  So the usual reasons why cases might be deferred don't apply.  The only reason I can think is if the Manx police have told them they are investigating Byrne for criminal charges over the same conduct, but I'm not sure that would be possible and nothing seems to have happened in the last six months.  It's a mystery.

But this isn't a criminal case.  Effectively it's an employment tribunal and the standards of proof and evidence are different.  So innocent until guilty doesn't apply because the doctor isn't found to be either.  Instead the tribunal decides whether they should be allowed to continue to practice medicine, based on the allegations but also other factors (such as if they have kept their medical skills up to date).

Correct. The GMC also has powers to suspend a doctor from the register and therefore stop them from working until a final decision can be made. The fact that they haven't chosen to, tells me that their risk assessment must have concluded that this doctor's continued practice poses a low risk to patients

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dr. Grumpy said:

Correct. The GMC also has powers to suspend a doctor from the register and therefore stop them from working until a final decision can be made. The fact that they haven't chosen to, tells me that their risk assessment must have concluded that this doctor's continued practice poses a low risk to patients

Unless your name is Patient Centred...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...