Final Report > Chapter 12: Responses to Concerns and Actions Taken, and Whether Such Actions were Appropriate and Prompt > Responses within the UBH/T > Mr Wisheart as a clinician

Mr Wisheart as a clinician

39 We emphasise that we are not concerned here with the technical skills of a surgeon in the operating theatre. To the extent that we are commenting on Mr Wisheart as a doctor, we are referring to his inability to reflect on his practice.

40 We conclude that, as a clinician, Mr Wisheart's failure to act in response to the outcomes he was achieving would be justified by him on the basis that he made his data available for scrutiny, as did Mr Dhasmana, and that the results were explicable in terms other than poor performance. He believed further that the outcomes would improve as experience improved. Also, he recognised that he should withdraw from PCS as soon as a replacement could be appointed. That said, we take the view that he should have recognised his own lack of objectivity and instituted some check on PCS, whether by colleagues within Bristol or from outside. Further, as a senior consultant he should have recognised the need for, and provided, better clinical leadership, communication and teamwork, particularly in the management of the Intensive Care Unit. In not doing so, he failed to act appropriately and promptly. This failure led to the creation of a number of the conditions giving rise to poor outcomes in PCS.

41 On all of these grounds, in his conduct as a manager and a clinician, we are critical of Mr Wisheart.