A shamed intensive care doctor who faced career ruin after he illicitly pocketed extra cash by secretly working at two hospitals at the same time has been allowed back to work after the NHS said it needed his help to treat Covid 19 patients.
Consultant anaesthetist John Bleasdale, 54, had been suspended from duty for a year after he wrongly claimed public money for 33 shifts at Sandwell General Hospital in West Bromwich when he was also on call at a nearby Priory clinic eight miles away.
Over a 21 month period Bleasdale a clinical lead in critical care worked 5.30pm-8am nightshifts at Sandwell whilst claiming a further £20,000 by agreeing to be on standby at the privately run BMI hospital in Birmingham.
Dr John Bleasdale, pictured, was suspended for duty for more than a year while he was investigated over allegations he wrongly claimed for 33 shifts at an NHS hospital when he was also working at a nearby private unit
Dr John Bleasdale was working at Sandwell General Hospital in West Bromwich, pictured, when he was due to be on call at The Priory Hospital in Birmingham, eight miles away
He was reported to the General Medical Council in April 2018 after his illicit working patterns were discovered by senior health officials.
In September last year Bleasdale who has since repaid the money was found guilty of misconduct and was banned from treating patients for 12 months after a disciplinary panel said his conduct had the ‘clear potential’ to put patients at risk.
But last week his suspension was cut short and he was deemed to fit to practise medicine again after a senior doctor at Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospital’s NHS trust wrote to the GMC without Bleasdale’s knowledge asking for him to be allowed back to front line duties to help tackle the pandemic.
The senior medic known only as Dr C stated he needed ‘every ICU consultant I can get, let alone clinically excellent colleagues such as John Bleasdale’. Other medical colleagues had described Bleasdale as ‘utterly dependable, hardworking and clinically outstanding.’
The GMC had initially called for Bleasdale to be struck off the medical register.
The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service was told Bleasdale who had worked at Sandwell since 2000 and the BMI Priory since 2002 was reported over £19,800 in payments for shifts he claimed for between March 2016 and December 2017
The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service was told Bleasdale who had worked at Sandwell since 2000 and the BMI Priory since 2002 was reported over £19,800 in payments for shifts he claimed for between March 2016 and December 2017.
The GMC accused him of ‘serious dishonesty’ saying Bleasdale ‘knowingly agreed’ to work for the NHS whilst claiming £600 a day from the Priory for ‘concurrent shifts’ without telling the Trust or colleagues. It said Bleasdale’s behaviour resulted in ‘potential detriment to patients’ as it ‘undermined his ability to respond at one site or the other.’
The doctor himself said on a typical day when on-call at the Priory he would start a ward round at 7.15am then work at Sandwell Hospital between 8am and 6pm whilst making himself available at the privately run clinic for ‘support.’
He said when he was on call for the Trust he would work at Sandwell from 5.30pm until 9pm then be available on the phone until 8am the following morning whilst at the Priory.
He claimed when on call for either the Trust or the Priory he could physically attend either hospital within 30 minutes if required. He also said patients admitted to the intensive care unit at the Priory required ‘less critical or urgent treatment.’ No patients suffered adversely as a result of Bleasdale’s dishonesty.
Bleasdale was also claiming £600 a shift while working for the Priory Hospital in Birmingham. He claimed he could attend either site within 30 minutes and no patient was harmed by his dishonesty
In a statement Bleasdale who has since resigned from his on-call work at the Priory said: ‘With hindsight, it is now very clear to me that I should never have agreed to work on-calls for the Trust and the Hospital ICU concurrently without first discussing it with my employers.
‘I agree that it was wrong of me to do so, but that was not my thinking at the time. Had I considered, and therefore known, that my actions were wrong either on a principled or contractual basis, I would never have agreed to work concurrent on-calls.
He added: ‘Prior to starting at the Hospital, I did consider what I would do if I was called to both the Hospital and the Trust simultaneously and whether there might be any patient safety implications.
‘However I thought about it on the basis of feasibility – whether I thought it was feasible for me to cover both locations or not. It has always been my view that this is feasible, given adequate cover, but it was rejected for economic rather than clinical concerns, because there would not actually have been any saving to the Trust.
‘I did think that this belief that two-site cover was feasible and safe influenced by decision with regard to covering the Hospital when on-call at the Trust.’
Dr Bleasdale apologised for his conduct. He said: ‘There was an obvious double payment for the on-call work and there were opportunities to avoid the situation. I should have been more transparent and flagged up any competing interests. I had not been honest in my financial dealings with the Trust and I created a potential for patient safety to be put at risk. My colleagues found my conduct to be clearly wrong’
In a follow up statement he added: ‘ I should have realised there were safety risks, it was a matter of common sense.
‘There was an obvious double payment for the on-call work and there were opportunities to avoid the situation. I should have been more transparent and flagged up any competing interests. I had not been honest in my financial dealings with the Trust and I created a potential for patient safety to be put at risk. My colleagues found my conduct to be clearly wrong.’
At the review hearing Bleasdale’s lawyer Mr Marios Lambis submitted a dossier of testimonials from hospital colleagues calling for his return to work.
Mr Lambis said: ‘It is particularly unusual that this early review was actually instigated without Dr Bleasdale’s knowledge after Dr C wrote to the
GMC to urge that he be permitted to return to work in light of the Covid-19 pandemic.
‘These documents are extraordinary and demonstrate that Dr Bleasdale took the 2019 Tribunal’s decision very seriously. He has worked tirelessly to address its concerns and had conducted himself with openness and transparency.
‘His reflections are exemplary, in-depth and demonstrate humility and self-understanding. Never has the public’s protection, NHS resources and access to able staff ever been so urgent and it is clearly not in the public interest to continue to deprive the public of a good and competent doctor.’
In one testimonial a colleague known as Dr F said: ‘Dr Bleasdale is an outstanding doctor. He is a well-respected Consultant Anaesthetist at the Trust and a lot of junior anaesthetists look up to him. He has undertaken many leadership roles within the Trust. He is hardworking and dependable and puts patient safety first. He has always been a reliable and trustworthy colleague.’
Another medic Dr I said: ‘He was not upset that people had raised concerns about the double on-calls, but rather that his actions might have potentially impacted on patient safety.
‘He was upset that people might think that he was greedy, or that he was putting his private work before his NHS work. I have never thought of Dr Bleasdale as greedy or putting his private work first. Dr Bleasdale has always put his NHS commitments first, and he is extremely dedicated.’
A third colleague Dr J said: ‘Dr Bleasdale told me that he had been extremely stupid. The fact is he is motivated by his wish to help people and he finds it very difficult to say ‘no’.’
In clearing Bleasdale to return to work MPTS chairman Simon Bond said: ‘Dr Bleasdale has now fully appreciated the gravity of his dishonest conduct. He has been open and honest with his colleagues at the Trust about the 2019 Tribunal’s findings and the sanction imposed upon him.
‘The Tribunal noted that, after a period of not working, Dr Bleasdale had been re-employed by the Trust in two separate non-clinical roles which was evidence of the esteem in which he is held. The Tribunal noted the substantial number of testimonials for Dr Bleasdale which attest to his clinical skills and the regard with which he is held by both junior and senior colleagues.
‘The balance is in favour of Dr Bleasdale’s suspension being revoked and allowing him to return to work as an ICU consultant in order to help address the current public health crisis.’