Daniel Hay: Major failings after former gynaecologist harmed women

A former NHS gynecologist and shortcuts contributed to women with serious physical damage, revealed a long -awaited report on his care.

Daniel Hay joined the University Hospitals of Derby and Burton (UHDB) NHS Foundation Trust in 2005 and operated hundreds of women before retiring in 2020.

A report – which examined Mr. Hay’s care between 2015 and 2018 – was ordered after the concerns were raised by colleagues, and found faults in his practices, how he was managed and added that “good fortune prevented new injuries”.

After the report on Wednesday, the NHS Trust said it was “really sorry” for women who received care “below expected standards”.

The report was put into service by the Gynecology Review Reineing Group, which included representations of NHS England, UHDB and Derby and Derbyshire Clinical Commissioning Group.

As part of the report, the panel contacted 325 women who had been treated by Mr. Hay between 2015 and 2018, asking them to share their experiences.

In addition to the 325 patients, 58 women had already been examined in a previous assessment carried out in 2019.

In Wednesday report, the management group panel identified two women as suffering from “seriously physical damage”, with three “moderate physical damage” under the care of Mr. Hay.

Among the identified problems were women who had hysterectomy – surgical procedure that removes the uterus – with some patients designed to have the impression that it was their “only option” when less invasive options may be available.

This “affected” the mental health of women who dreamed of starting families but who could not do so, affecting their relationships and their jobs.

The report also revealed that Mr. Hay “has demonstrated poor clinical practice”, “did not recognize the possible risks”, while the NHS Trust which used it “has somehow allowed to continue until it retires because of poor health”.

His consent processes – in which patients should be able to make informed decisions during surgery – were mediocre, his file outfit was inadequate and his communication with patients was often disdainful, added the report.

The concerns concerning Hay were raised by consultants, theater staff and managers from 2017-2018, but the panel said it was “surprised” that these staff members were interviewed by the trust in 2022 – about five years later.

The report has published several testimonies of women, which were not appointed. They described being precipitated in hysterectomies.

• A woman was treated by Mr. Hay for heavy menstrual bleeding and received a hysterectomy after a 10 -minute consultation without scan or alternative discussed, according to the report. She said surgery had left her in pain, suffering from anxiety and depression
• Another woman estimated that she had no option other than having a hysterectomy – even if there was no scan exam or investigation. She said: “Is a major so drastic operation the only option I had?”
• A woman found that Mr. Hay was “erratic”. She said to the panel: “I remember that Mr. Hay asked,” What do you want? “” I just want the bleeding to stop “was my answer.
• A patient asked why she must have an open hysterectomy, rather than via an approach to lock hole, and was amazed when Mr. Hay replied “I like to decide”, according to the report
• Meanwhile, another patient added: “I will never set foot in a hospital in the NHS again. If my leg was suspended, I am amputating it myself.”

Of the 325 women whose care has been examined, the panel has classified each red case – for major concerns – amber for certain concerns, or green – in which none has been identified.

In total, 48 cases were evaluated in red, 68 amber and 209 green, although the examination did not define the exact nature of the concerns.

The panel found that it was only because of the “support of good colleagues” and good fortune “that new damage has been prevented from being caused.

Mr. Hay, who is in the sixties and Alfreton in the Derbyshire, is currently the subject of a derbyshire police investigation and was questioned under caution earlier this year.

He spoke to the police of the procedures he carried out at Royal Derby Hospital and at Ripley Hospital.

A police spokesperson said: “Due to the complex nature of the case, the investigations took time throughout the investigation, we stayed in close contact with the people affected and will continue to do so as the investigation continues.”

Mr. Hay has not officially commented on the issue for over four years.

His statement in July 2021 said: “I apologize to women affected by the NHS investigation. I cooperate with the investigation, however, because of my current mental health problems, I ask you to respect my privacy for the moment.”

The Union of Medical Defense, on behalf of Mr. Hay, did not wish to comment when it is approached by the BBC.

Following the report, a series of recommendations was made to the trust, in particular by introducing measures to “identify poorly efficient clinicians”, which no consultant should work in isolation and that multidisciplinary team meetings should be compulsory for clinicians.

He also called on the trust to invest in more gynecological support for women on his care.

Another recommendation was that the Trust examines the care of Mr. Hay’s women before 2015, which was now accepted in order to start in the fall.

Once ready, the trust will contact the women who enter the examination of the “phase 2” to invite them to participate.

A second report, which examined governance at the UHDB Trust at the time, was published alongside the main care review of Mr. Hay.

He said Mr. Hay’s care should also be examined.

Dr. Gis Robinson, Executive Director of NHS Trust, said: “We want to take over our excuses not reserved for women who received care from Mr. Hay who was well below the expected standards.

“Following the report, we have made significant changes, with clearer consent procedures and improved clinical surveillance so that any care problem can be identified more quickly and improved post-procedure journals for women.

“We will continue to monitor them and examine them closely to ensure that they are effective and fully integrated, and use our learning to support and inform the next step in the exam.”

By Rob Sissons, correspondent East Midlands Health

The report is full of figures, but, of course, behind the figures are the real life of women who say that their relationships have been ruined by bad care.

I spoke to two women involved in the journal which, to a certain extent, blended to have accepted what Mr. Hay said. The two felt licensed and not listened to, but of course, they trusted a surgeon in one of the most personal and sensitive fields of medicine, gynecology.

In large organizations – the NHS is the largest employer in the country – things are going badly, but the question is always whether the systems and the processes in place are robust enough to acquire poor performance, and that management does enough when the problems are exposed and the colleagues are expressed? In the case of hay, it is now obvious, more could be done and should have been done.

Other cases will now be examined. Examination of the work of this NHS consultant and treatment with his employer continue.