'Golden boy' transplant surgeon's suspension extended
A "golden boy" transplant surgeon found to have sexually harassed female colleagues has had his eight-month suspension extended to a year.
James Gilbert worked as a senior registrar in 2008 and 2009 for Oxford University Hospitals (OUH) NHS Trust and as a consultant between 2010 and 2022, when he was sacked.
One woman said his status was the "golden boy" of the department and that he was the "be-all and end-all for transplants in Oxford".
A Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) panel found Mr Gilbert sexually harassed four women but the General Medical Council (GMC) appealed the suspension's length at the High Court on Thursday.
The GMC, supported by the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care (PSA), said the eight-month suspension was "insufficient to protect the public".
Mr Justice Calver imposed a 12-month suspension, the longest possible, and said the MPTS's had erred twice at Mr Gilbert's tribunal in August.
The judge found the doctor imitating an Indian accent and telling a man "oh, when are you leaving the country now?", or words to that effect, and referring to Brexit was racist.
He also found Mr Gilbert telling a colleague "look at all that fat, this is what happens when you eat chapatti" during an organ retrieval procedure constituted harassment.
The MPTS panel had previously found that those charges were not proved.
In other claims, he reportedly said to one trainee while working in Oxford: "You're a well together girl, you must always wear matching underwear. What kind are you wearing now?"
Another trainee was allegedly asked about matching underwear, and on one occasion he reportedly stared at her and said: "I have been watching you and you're pretty perfect."
In May 2021, OUH excluded Mr Gilbert after concerns were raised but he was allowed to return six weeks later with restrictions on his practice.
An email was then sent to surgical trainees inviting them to flag up concerns, leading to Mr Gilbert's dismissal in May 2022.
Mr Justice Calver said the 12-month suspension "reflects the seriousness" of Mr Gilbert's misconduct.
He added it will also give Mr Gilbert "an adequate period to reflect upon and remediate his behaviour" but that it was "not suggested that Mr Gilbert was other than a highly competent surgeon".
Mr Gilbert told the MPTS that the disciplinary process had been "humbling, humiliating and deeply shameful".
He said he was a "different person and a fundamentally changed practitioner from the doctor whose conduct led to [the] complaints being raised" and apologised for his behaviour.
You can follow BBC Oxfordshire on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.
Surgeon suspended after sexual harassment ruling
Transplant surgeon harassed colleagues, tribunal hears
General Medical Council
Medical Practitioners Tribunals Service
HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Martha doctor's failings 'particularly grave'
The failings of a doctor responsible for Martha Mills' care, who died from sepsis, amounted to "gross negligence" and were "particularly grave", a medical tribunal says. Her death gave rise to Martha's Rule in hundreds of hospitals in England, giving parents the right to an urgent second opinion. The tribunal found consultant Prof Richard Thompson failed to appreciate how seriously ill 13-year-old Martha had become in the summer of 2021, following a bike accident. On the crucial afternoon, he did not examine her in person or send her to intensive care. The tribunal concluded Prof Thompson's fitness to practise was impaired, but decided to take no further action against the doctor. Martha was transferred to King's College Hospital in London in 2021, one of three specialist treatment centres in the UK, after a holiday bike accident left her with serious injuries to her pancreas. During a family holiday, she had skidded on some sand while cycling and fell heavily onto the handlebars. Her parents, Merope Mills and Paul Laity, wrote about their pain and anger over their daughter's treatment following her death. "It was a difficult, tricky injury, but it did not have to be a fatal one," Merope has said. Martha stayed in the hospital for the next month. After a few weeks, she developed an infection and then signs of sepsis - when the body's response to an infection is overwhelming and ends up injuring its own tissues and organs - but this was not managed properly. An inquest found that she could have survived her injuries if she'd been referred to the specialist children's intensive care in the hospital promptly, and received better care. Interviewed on BBC Radio 4's Today programme in 2023, Merope Mills said her family were not listened to by senior doctors on several occasions and were "not given the full picture" about Martha's deteriorating condition. Over the past few weeks, the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service has heard allegations from the doctors' regulator, the General Medical Council (GMC), that Prof Thompson failed on several counts over his care of Martha. He was the consultant on call on her ward on Sunday 29 August 2021 - two days before she died. The tribunal said it was "evident" that by around 17:00 that day Martha had "several high risk indicators" including her heart rate, breathing and a rising temperature, which "indicated a sudden and significant deterioration". It said Martha's condition, which included a new rash, justified her being moved to intensive care but "this opportunity was not taken". Later that evening, Prof Thompson was called at home by a colleague about Martha's continued fever. He had already seen her on his morning ward round, but did not return to the hospital to examine her in person. Giving evidence, Prof Thompson he said that he felt "deep remorse" for Martha's death, but did not believe he had made errors in the case. He said one of the reasons he wanted to keep Martha on his ward was not to distress her parents, but the tribunal said this did not justify withholding or delaying her move to intensive care. The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service concluded that his fitness to practise had been impaired. It said this would reassure the public and send a message to doctors about the importance of following the fundamental principles of good care. The GMC had argued that Prof Thompson should be suspended from clinical practice but the tribunal said he would face no disciplinary penalty. Tribunal chairman Robin Ince said Prof Thompson had done "everything possible to address his failings" and a "stain on his reputation" would remain for the rest of his life. "The tribunal considered that the best way to repair any harm caused by his failings would be for him to continue to provide his specialist expertise at home and abroad," he added. Martha's parents raised concerns about their daughter's care to the regulator, the GMC, in 2022. Responding to the tribunal's findings Martha's parents said: "It is important to us that allegations denied have been found proved and the gravity of mistakes that led to our daughter's preventable death has been recognised. "We will always have in our minds the failures of culture, training and policy on Rays of Sunshine Ward at King's College Hospital, as well as the responsibility of individuals. "We'd like to thank all the thoughtful doctors who have helped us to understand what happened to Martha." The hospital that looked after Martha has admitted mistakes were made, and the trust said previously in a statement that it "remains deeply sorry that we failed Martha when she needed us most". Martha's rule: Mum encouraged as hospitals sign up Hospitals to introduce Martha's rule from April
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
No disciplinary sanction for doctor's ‘grave' failures in care of Martha Mills
A senior doctor will face no disciplinary penalty for failings in his care of a teenager who died days later from sepsis. Professor Richard Thompson did not refer Martha Mills, 13, to intensive care despite her displaying several high-risk indicators of sepsis. The on-call consultant also chose not to return to London's King's College Hospital to assess her in person as her condition deteriorated. A Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) panel sitting in Manchester had ruled those omissions were misconduct, which they described as 'particularly grave', and found his fitness to practise was impaired. However, on Wednesday the tribunal decided there were 'exceptional circumstances' which justified taking no further action against the world-renowned paediatric liver specialist. Martha had been an inpatient on the hospital's Rays of Sunshine Ward after she suffered a serious injury to her pancreas when she slipped while riding a bike on a family holiday in Wales in July 2021. Weeks later she experienced a fever and increased heart rate, followed by more spikes in her temperature before the consultant hepatologist saw Martha on his morning ward round on Sunday August 29. Prof Thompson left the hospital at 3pm, but was phoned at home two hours later by a trainee doctor, who gave an update on Martha's condition. Medical records showed she had deteriorated over the course of the afternoon, and into the early evening, with a drop in her blood pressure, the appearance of a new rash and increases in heart rate, respiratory rate and body temperature. Tribunal chairman Robin Ince noted that by 5pm there were 'several high-risk indicators' as set out in the Nice guidelines relating to sepsis. The duty registrar called Prof Thompson again at 8.30pm because of ongoing concerns over Martha's fever, but she was kept on the ward despite the continued presence of moderate to high-risk indicators and the absence of meaningful clinical improvement. Martha collapsed on August 30 and was moved to intensive care before she was transferred to London's Great Ormond Street Hospital, where she died in the early hours of August 31. Announcing its conclusions on Wednesday, Mr Ince said: 'Professor Thompson has done everything possible to address his failings. 'The tribunal considered that the best way to repair any harm caused by his failings would be for him to continue to provide his specialist expertise at home and abroad. 'To now – some four years after the index event – remove Professor Thompson from practice, even for a short period of time, for one single lapse of judgment in an otherwise exemplary career would, in the tribunal's view, be akin to punishment which is not the role of the MPTS.' Among the 'exceptional circumstances' cited were that there was no allegation or evidence that Prof Thompson either caused or contributed to Martha's death. There were also systemic failings regarding how the ward functioned at the time with regard to referrals to the paediatric intensive care unit, said the tribunal. Mr Ince said: 'A sufficiently clear message has already been sent to the profession and to the public – that even such an experienced doctor as Professor Thompson could still make serious errors of clinical judgment for which he will be called to account. 'The public would be aware that this finding would remain a stain on Professor Thompson's reputation for the rest of his life.' At a 2022 inquest into her death, a coroner ruled that Martha would most likely have survived if doctors had identified the warning signs and transferred her to intensive care earlier. Martha's mother, Merope Mills, an editor at The Guardian, said she and her husband, Paul Laity, raised concerns about Martha's deteriorating health a number of times but these were not acted on. The couple later successfully campaigned for Martha's Rule to give patients, families and carers the chance to easily request a second opinion from a senior doctor in the same hospital in the event of a suspected deterioration or serious concern. Giving evidence, Prof Thompson told the MPTS hearing that he no longer provided in-patient care because he began to 'doubt my own judgment' after the tragic events. He said he felt 'deep remorse' for Martha's death but did not believe he made any errors in her case, as he denied all the allegations brought by the General Medical Council (GMC). The tribunal heard he had since completed a training course relating to the management of sepsis and a deteriorating child in paediatric care. His barrister, Ben Rich, said Prof Thompson has been a dedicated doctor and specialist for nearly 40 years and had never previously been investigated by a regulator. He said he had a reputation as a 'hard-working and outstanding clinician and researcher, who has an international reputation as one of the leading paediatric liver specialists in the world'. Mr Rich urged the tribunal members to impose an order of conditions involving supervision on Prof Thompson's registration, but the panel disagreed and said such a measure would be 'unnecessary and artificial', as they opted to take no further action. Christopher Rose, for the GMC, said that Prof Thompson should be suspended to send a message to the wider public and the wider profession, given the seriousness of the failings found.
Forbes
9 hours ago
- Forbes
The Future Of Healthcare Is Collaborative—And AI Is The Catalyst
Collaboration and AI in Indian health care A quiet revolution is underway in the heart of a radiology lab at Apollo Hospitals in Chennai, India. Artificial intelligence is scanning high-resolution images, flagging anomalies, reducing the time for diagnosis, and improving accuracy. But what makes this advancement so powerful isn't just the algorithm behind it. It's the collaboration between a hospital, a tech company, and a university that makes AI innovation sustainable, scalable, and relevant to India's complex healthcare landscape. Across India, a new model of digital health transformation is emerging, one where partnerships are as crucial as platforms. For a country grappling with massive disparities in healthcare access and delivery, this shift couldn't be more timely. These are the observations and conclusions from my peer, Dr. Priyanka Shrivastava, who is a Professor of Marketing & Analytics at Hult International Business School and an Executive Fellow at The Digital Economist. India's healthcare system faces deep challenges: a rapidly growing population, stark urban-rural divides, a chronic shortage of medical professionals, and overstretched public infrastructure. While the proliferation of health-tech startups has brought promise, much of the innovation remains confined to urban pockets or pilot projects. AI detects disease, streamlines diagnosis, and personalizes treatment. Tools like AI-powered nutrition coaches (HealthifyMe's Ria) and automated diagnostic assistants (such as those used by Aindra or Columbia Asia Hospital) are transforming the delivery of healthcare. Yet, these tools often encounter barriers due to a lack of interoperability, fragmented data systems, regulatory uncertainty, and resistance from overworked staff who fear that AI might be more of a disruption than an aid. Technology alone cannot fix healthcare. But technology plus collaboration just might. In a recent study, Dr. Shrivastava and her colleagues surveyed 300 healthcare professionals across 50 institutions and held in-depth interviews with doctors, technologists, and policymakers. The results were striking: institutions with strong cross-sector collaborations consistently showed higher and more sustained AI adoption. Three core insights emerged: Urban hospitals often have access to advanced technology and data, whereas rural clinics often lack even basic diagnostic capabilities. But when these entities partner via telemedicine links, shared platforms, or co-funding arrangements, AI can extend its reach. For example, Apollo's AI systems, when linked with satellite clinics, enable faster referrals and better triage in underserved regions. Resistance to AI isn't irrational—it often stems from a lack of understanding. The study found that joint workshops, where doctors and engineers co-learned and co-created, built buy-in from healthcare workers. When staff are trained with the tools and understand how they were developed, they are far more likely to embrace them. AI isn't plug-and-play. It requires regular updates, feedback loops, and cultural alignment. Institutions that formalized collaboration through MOUs, shared R&D labs, or co-published studies were more likely to sustain AI programs over the long term. Apollo's AI-driven radiology initiative in Chennai is a textbook example. Faced with long diagnosis times and overburdened radiologists, the hospital sought a solution. Instead of simply buying an off-the-shelf AI tool, Apollo co-developed one with a university, providing algorithm expertise, and a startup delivering the technical infrastructure. Doctors and developers worked side by side. The result? Diagnosis time dropped by 30%, and accuracy improved by 15%. Radiologists weren't replaced—they were enhanced, with AI acting as a second pair of eyes. Continuous training and feedback ensured the system evolved with practice. This wasn't a one-off deployment. It was an ecosystem. And that made all the difference. While Apollo represents a private success, the public sector isn't far behind. India's eSanjeevani platform, which added AI-supported teleconsultation features during the pandemic, saw a 40% increase in rural usage. This shows that with the right support and scale, AI can democratize access to care. The National Digital Health Mission is another promising initiative. If executed well—with strong data privacy frameworks and open APIs—it can offer a common layer for innovation. Startups can plug into public records; government hospitals can access AI-enabled diagnostics; researchers can draw insights from anonymized data. But for this to happen, policymakers must prioritize collaboration frameworks just as much as digital infrastructure. As India enters a defining decade for health innovation, here are four actionable takeaways from the research: Tax breaks, innovation grants, and pilot funding for joint ventures in AI health can catalyze adoption. Startups gain credibility and scale; public hospitals get access to frontier tech. Set up AI literacy programs for frontline health workers. Encourage interdisciplinary training so doctors, nurses, and tech teams speak a common language. A national framework on health data interoperability is overdue. Without this, AI solutions cannot scale beyond one institution. Build trust through consent-driven, encrypted data-sharing norms. Mandate impact audits for all health AI deployments—measuring not just tech efficiency, but patient outcomes, staff satisfaction, and system-level equity. The most inspiring part of this story? AI in Indian healthcare isn't being driven solely by top-down mandates or Silicon Valley imports. It's being shaped organically by Indian doctors, engineers, policy thinkers, and entrepreneurs who are joining forces. This pluralistic model with many voices but one mission could well become a template for emerging economies around the world. In a landscape where access to a doctor can mean the difference between life and death, AI's potential is undeniable. But its success will depend on something far more human: our ability to collaborate. The most transformative technology for health care is not an algorithm. It is the alignment of purpose, people, vision, and AI through collaboration.
