This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Read the latest issue online

The docbot will see you now

Dr Bawa-Garba allowed to return to practice from July 2019

A tribunal has ruled that Dr Hadiza Bawa-Garba - the paediatic trainee involved in the death of a six-year-old boy - will be allowed to return to practice, under certain conditions.

The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) agreed that the public interest has been served already by her cumulative suspension and that she should be allowed to return to training from July 2019 - under supervision - but she does not intend to return to work until February 2020, when her maternity leave finishes. 

This comes after the MPTS ruled yesterday that Dr Bawa-Garba fitness to practise remained impaired due to her lack of face-to-face patient contact while she was suspended.

The MPTS said Dr Bawa-Garba could return to practice under a number of conditions that will apply for a period of 24 months, which include the appointment of an education supervisor by her responsible officer among others.      

MPTS tribunal chair Ms Claire Sharp said: ‘The evidence before the Tribunal shows that Dr Bawa-Garba has undertaken a significant amount of remediation already and that she has booked further courses to be undertaken prior to her resuming work in February 2020.

‘Given the remediation Dr Bawa-Garba has already undertaken and the full insight she has developed into her shortcomings, the Tribunal was satisfied that Dr Bawa-Garba has the potential to respond positively to remediation, retraining, and to her work being supervised. From the evidence before it, the Tribunal was also satisfied that Dr Bawa-Garba remains fully committed to keeping her skills and knowledge up to date and that she has made substantial progress in doing so despite not being in clinical practice.’

She added: 'The Tribunal was therefore satisfied that a period of conditional registration would be an appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case which would adequately address Dr Bawa-Garba’s extended absence from clinical practice whilst at the same time protecting the public and maintaining confidence in the profession. As noted in its earlier determination at the impairment stage of these proceedings, the Tribunal is satisfied that the public interest in this case has been served by the cumulative suspension of Dr Bawa-Garba’s registration for 18 months. The Tribunal therefore considered that any sanction higher than that of a period of conditional registration would be disproportionate and punitive.'

A GMC spokesperson said: 'We would like to acknowledge how difficult this process has been for the Adcock family and our thoughts are with them.'

'The GMC and Dr Bawa-Garba’s representatives both submitted to the medical practitioners tribunal that her fitness to practise remains impaired due to the length of time she has been out of practice. It is important the doctor’s return to practice is safely managed.'

They added: 'The tribunal agreed, making a finding of impairment, and they have imposed conditions on Dr Bawa-Garba’s registration for two years in order to allow her to return safely to practice.'

The Doctors' Association UK chair Dr Samantha Batt-Rawden said: 'Today’s verdict, whilst welcome, is no cause of celebration. There are no winners in this desperately sad case. However, restoring Dr Bawa-Garba to the medical register is the right outcome and will go some way in addressing the current climate of fear and blame in the NHS which is so toxic to patient safety. I have no doubt that Dr Hadiza Bawa-Garba will now be the safest doctor in the hospital, and as a doctor and a mother I would have no hesitation in allowing her to treat my child.'

In December last year, it was announced that the MPTS had extended the suspension of Dr Hadiza Bawa-Garba by a further six months, in order to 'protect the public'.

This ruling followed a Court of Appeal judgment against the GMC in August ordering Dr Bawa-Garba not to be struck off the medical register.

The GMC had succeeded in striking off Dr Bawa-Garba in a high-profile High Court case after appealling against the MPTS's decision to suspend her for a year. 

Dr Bawa-Garba’s appeal case

Dr Bawa-Garba was struck off the medical register after the High Court ruled in favour of the GMC in the case against its own fitness-to-practise tribunal in January this year.

James Laddie, the QC representing Dr Bawa-Garba, claimed at her appeal hearing in July that there were ‘systemic failings which contributed to the environment in which Dr Bawa-Garba came to make the mistakes which led us to this court’.

Dr Bawa-Garba had originally diagnosed Jack Adcock with gastroenteritis and failed to spot from blood tests that Jack had sepsis, or review chest X-rays that indicated he had a chest infection.

Following the initial High Court ruling, which caused an uproar from the medical profession, the Government has announced its intention to strip the GMC of the power to appeal MPTS decisions. However the GMC has said it will continue until legislation changes.

Readers' comments (18)

  • Vinci Ho

    Helen , if you have some political ‘wisdom and sensitivity ‘ , I think you should say something like that , ‘should you ever consider a change of direction in career , Dr BG , the college welcomes you in open hands ‘.
    But we all know what the college is looking like ........

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    And more importantly, if you read the latest BBC new Health on the case of Ian Paterson , it clearly demonstrates (a) the importance of a balanced approach in a regulatory system (b) the difference between a ‘crime’ with intent and no intent (c) the contrast between NHS and private sector):
    ‘’Private hospitals must do more to keep patients safe and prevent rogue surgeons like Ian Paterson from harming anyone again, the Royal College of Surgeons says.........’’

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Sepsis is hard to diagnose. Poor scapegoat.It should not take so long. There are no criticism of his mother who gave Jack his blood pressure pill without it being prescribed on the drug chart.No justice.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Nothing has changed. More of these cases are going to happen in the future. Its probably explains why organisations like GMC,MPTS,HEE and the Courts are still thriving and have no intentions to tackle and resolve the problems of systemic failures. Why would you bite the hand that feeds you?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I have the utmost sympathy for Jack’s mum but unfortunately the worst is still to come for her. She can not run on anger, denial and blaming others for her mistake for ever. I wonder if she will apologise to BG and those poor nurses when reality hits? Will there be any news coverage is she does?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • So who is going to support her and her suffering family financially till 2020. I'm not even thinking of moral support which she so badly requires at this time.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Case in 2011. Working in 2019. Bet the GMC has made her safer losing her clinical skills while suspended. Not fit for purpose.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The timeline of poor Jack Adcock shows he was getting much better under Dr BG's care.
    That is why he was transferred to a general ward by someone else.
    Who authorized the transfer and why is this person not in court to explain the decision?
    My contention would be that had Jack not been transferred from Dr BG's direct care, he would got have got his ACEI [ she had not written it up], and would not have suffered the catastrophic hypotension.
    He would have continued to improve and gone home.
    It was BECAUSE he left Dr BG's care that he died and not the other way around.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say