Vol. 545 No. 5
29 Ms McManus asked the Minister for Health and Children the investigation which has been carried out into the circumstances in which a psychiatrist suspended in Britain (details supplied) was allowed to practise at two psychiatric hospitals here; the steps being taken to ensure that such an eventuality does not recur; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31011/01]
Ireland has a very strict regulatory regime which is designed to ensure that only competent, properly qualified medical practitioners can work in this country. No doctor is allowed to practise medicine in Ireland unless he or she is registered on the register of medical practitioners. The overriding rationale behind these requirements is to ensure the protection of the public. Under the Medical Practitioners Act, 1978, the Irish Medical Council is the independent body charged with regulating medical registration.
When this issue surrounding the appointment in 2000 of a locum consultant psychiatrist by the South-Eastern Health Board was brought to my attention, I immediately made arrangements to meet with both the Medical Council and the board. I was unable to meet the South-Eastern Health Board due to other commitments, but following the briefing of my officials by the board and my meeting with the Medical Council, I decided to appoint an independent person, Ms Maureen Lynott, to review the circumstances surrounding the case and to ascertain all the facts with a view to establishing whether and how procedures or regulations may be improved.
The South-Eastern Health Board has informed me that it employed the named doctor in a locum capacity from 17 April 2000 until 5 November 2000. He was employed at St. Luke's Psychiatric Hospital, Clonmel, until 31 July and from 14 August at St. Canice's Psychiatric Hospital, Kilkenny. I have been advised by the South-Eastern Health Board that the temporary appointment was made following the board's advertisement of the post and in accordance with its recruitment procedures. The board has established a help line for patients who may have concerns in relation to their contact with this doctor.
I reassure the House that it is the intention of my Department, the health board and the Medical Council to ensure the protection of patients and to promote confidence in the health service. We are all taking steps to ensure that these aims are met. In this context, I have been advised that the Medical Council has obtained an order from the High Court suspending the doctor in question from the general register of medical practitioners from 13 November 2001, pending the outcome of an inquiry by the council's fitness to practise committee early next year.
Does the Minister accept that his statement in regard to the existence of a strict regulatory regime sits uneasily with the facts of this case where someone was appointed to a position here with documentation of certification provided by the Medical Council? Even though the council knew the doctor was under suspension in Britain, it did not inform the health board. The Minister must accept that this matter cannot be left to a lengthy independent review. What provision is he making to establish a procedure to ensure that full information is provided to employers? What is the current procedure? Is the Minister aware of the significant complaints about delays of fitness to practise hearings? Will he indicate the terms of reference for the independent review? Is the reviewer examining all aspects of fitness to practise hearings and the certification of consultants by the Medical Council?
The independent reviewer is to consider all relevant written documentation on the recruitment of Dr. John Harding Price by the South-Eastern Health Board from 17 April 2000 to 31 July 2000, and 14 August 2000 to 5 November 2000; to interview all relevant persons about the recruitment and employment of that doctor for the periods mentioned above; to consider how procedures and-or regulations may need to be improved as a result of this examination; and to prepare a report on the matter for me.
My comment on the strict regulatory procedure applied to the broad area registration of medical practitioners. On the other side of the scale, we have had complaints, some from Members of this House, about the difficulties some practitioners have in getting on the register because of an over-zealous regime. However, incidents like this highlight the need for vigilance.
In my meeting with the Medical Council, I learned that part of the difficulty was that in August 2000 it went to the High Court to have Dr. Harding Price taken off the register but were refused by the High Court which did not accept that a case was proven. The president of the council told me that it was prohibited by the court from revealing its information to anyone, even the Minister.
That was after that case.
Yes, after that case. I am unhappy about this. There are conflicting views from the Medical Council and the health board. I hope to get clarity on that. That is the current situation and we are examining the legislation on medical practitioners with a view to reforming the regime and fitness to practice and achieving greater transparency and responsiveness to consumers' concerns.
