Eye surgeon sacked for roping in unqualified boss for op But medic was unfairly dismissed after nurse backed out of surgery
AN EYE surgeon was sacked after allowing an unqualified staff member to help him in surgery to save a patient’s sight, a tribunal heard.
But now Tristan Reuser has won his legal battle for unfair dismissal after the tribunal was told he faced a refusal by some nurses to assist in operations.
During the operation, he was assisted by a general support manager at Solihull Hospital because the nurse who originally agreed to do so backed out, Birmingham Employment Tribunal was told.
Sarah Watson had been in theatre, but “never scrubbed up and had no qualifications or experience in assisting in theatre procedures”, said tribunal judge Robin Broughton in his report.
Mr Reuser was placed in a difficult position. In evidence, the “highly respected” medic said he believed if the patient was not operated on that day he faced blindness.
Such a procedure should take place within a month. The patient had already waited five weeks.
Birmingham Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust denied the procedure was too critical to be postponed and it placed the patient at risk. There was a possibility the helper would faint.
The operation took place in May 2016 and Mr Reuser was sacked seven months later.
The surgery was a success, with the assistant only needed to use a retractor to keep the patient’s eyelid open.
Mr Reuser, a long-serving consultant ophthalmic surgeon with over 20 years experience, has now won his legal battle over unfair dismissal for gross misconduct.
He also claimed he was sacked for making a protected disclosure – “whistleblowing” in layman’s terms – over some nurses’ refusal to assist in eye ops.
Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust dismissed Mr Reuser after he faced a disciplinary panel over allegations of :
Allowing an untrained staff member to assist him in theatre;
Attending a September 2016 meeting when he had a prearranged “clinical commitment”;
Leaving a junior unsupervised to carry out cataract operations.
The trust believed the surgery, assisted by Sarah Watson, could have been postponed.
It maintained that “the claimant’s (Mr Reuser’s) actions were totally inappropriate and, specifically, that they increased avoidable risk.
“The specific risks identified were in relation to the increased infection risk when utilising an untrained assistant who had never scrubbed up before, the risks of the individual not being able to hold steady, or even fainting or, indeed, not being able to react appropriately should anything have gone wrong.”
The medic, however, felt he was left with only two options: “Either cancelling the operation and risking the patient losing their sight or allowing an unqualified member of staff to support him. The claimant went on to say that he wanted management to address the position of nurses withdrawing assistance. But the hearing was told Mr Reuser agreed he could have done things differently.
Judge Broughton stated: “The claimant (Mr Reuser) acknowledged in his disciplinary hearing that, despite the fact that he had been informed that no one was available to assist him, he should have done more to check that information and search himself for some assistance or even to escalate the matter to more senior management.”
The judge’s report added: “The (disciplinary) panel concluded, wrongly, that the risk of proceeding with an unqualified assistant was greater than postponing the procedure, which it wasn’t.”
Mr Reuser had the patient’s “best interests at heart”.
The surgeon’s conduct was reported to the General Medical Council, but they ruled no action should be taken.
Concerns had been raised over nurses’ refusal to assist in ops, the court was told.
Mr Reuser attended the disciplinary hearing with no expectation or warning that he would be sacked.
Judge Broughton said: “I heard evi- dence that nurses in Solihull would, on occasion, refuse to assist. This had, seemingly, been an issue going back a few years.
“A number of consultants had concerns about this practice and it had been raised previously to no avail.”
Mr Reuser and colleague Dr Kipioti were among the latest to send a letter of complaint to management about the situation.
Judge Broughton said Mr Reuser’s failings were significant and serious because he had subjected patients to avoidable risk, “but the respondents did not consider the claimant’s disclosures about the Solihull nurses properly, if at all, in the content of his dismissal”.
Judge Broughton said that Dr Reuser was unfairly dismissed but had contributed 50 per cent to his dismissal.