Final Report > Chapter 12: Responses to Concerns and Actions Taken, and Whether Such Actions were Appropriate and Prompt > Responses outside the UBH/T > The Department of Health and Dr Bolsin

The Department of Health and Dr Bolsin

9 Dr Bolsin was in contact through his work on audit with Dr Ashwell and Dr Doyle, both Senior Medial Officers at the Department of Health. He approached Dr Ashwell, who responded by advising Dr Bolsin about the formal procedures for dealing with disputes between doctors and by raising the matter with Professor Farndon, who was the Director of the Division of Surgery at the University of Bristol. It is difficult to see what Dr Ashwell she could have been expected to do.

10 When Dr Doyle was given data by Dr Bolsin which he was told related to Dr Bolsin's concerns, he did not read it but put it away in a filing cabinet without further scrutiny. In our view this was a seriously inappropriate response. Knowing that the data related to concerns about PCS, Dr Doyle should have examined it. If Dr Doyle had found that he was not able to assess the data himself, he could have sought advice. Dr Doyle was inappropriately reluctant to get engaged in what he saw as a dispute between doctors. In our view, Dr Doyle, by not examining the contents of the envelope given to him by Dr Bolsin, allowed himself to avoid considering whether to urge suspension of the service. It is true that, ordinarily, the DoH sought not to become involved in local clinical issues, taking the view that such matters are best dealt with locally. But this situation was different. Dr Doyle, by not looking at Dr Bolsin's data, simply chose not to have to make a decision. However, Dr Doyle did write to Professor Angelini to seek reassurances. [11] By opening up a dialogue with the BRI, the DoH did become aware of the concerns in Bristol, which led Dr Doyle subsequently to seek reassurances from Dr Roylance. Dr Doyle's later response to Professor Angelini and his insistence on a review after the Joshua Loveday case were entirely appropriate.

Footnotes

[11] The decision of the judicial committee of the Privy Council in the case of Roylance v GMC AC (1999) 139 might suggest that, by virtue of his being a doctor, Dr Doyle should have involved himself even more directly, given that the safety of care for children was at issue. We do not hold this view, and if the case of Roylance could be said to have decided that a doctor's duty extends that far, we regard the decision as unhelpful. Dr Doyle was a full-time official of the DoH. To suggest that simply by virtue of being a doctor he always owes a duty to any patient about whom he learns would make the performance of his role impossible. We discuss in Section Two possible variations in the registration, and consequently the duties, of a doctor working in a non-clinical setting