Medic bows out over botched review row

A medic at the centre of a botched review into NHS Tayside breast cancer treatment has been “voluntarily erased” from the medical register, The Courier can reveal.

Dr Adrian Harnett was brought in to examine oncology practices after it emerged breast cancer patients were receiving a lower-than-recommended dose of chemotherapy drugs.

Around 200 people were given the lower doses between December 2016 and April 2019 in a bid to reduce harmful side effects.

A Scottish Government report concluded this could have resulted in further harm.

A 2018 service review involving Dr Harnett collapsed when it emerged he had previously reviewed practices favourably and co-authored a paper with one of the doctors involved.

The conflict of interest was cited by the General Medical Council, which accused him of displaying “poor professional judgment”.

The doctor gave his own version of events but applied for voluntary erasure from the register just two days later, citing “retirement” as the reason.

A group of patients and family members caught up in the row laid out plans in 2019 to sue NHS Tayside over their care and hit out at a “catastrophic breakdown in communication” with officials over the issue.

Asenior doctor at the centre of a botched re view into breast cancer treatment at NHS Tayside has been voluntarily erased from the medical register, The Courier can reveal.

The action was taken after Dr Adrian Harnett was reprimanded over an undeclared conflict of interest.

He had been recruited as a panel member for an invited service review at the health board in 2018 following revelations breast cancer patients in the region had been given lower than standard doses of chemotherapy drugs for years.

The specialist has since been ordered to pay back his £900 fee for the work after being accused of being unintentionally “dishonest” over his previous relationship with NHS Tayside and the oncologists involved in delivering the treatment.

Around 200 people were given the lower doses between December 2016 and April 2019 in a bid to reduce harmful side effects.

A Scottish Governmentcommissioned report later said the treatment resulted in an increased risk of their cancer recurring.

The 2018 service review, conducted by the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) London and paid for with public money, collapsed after it emerged Dr Harnett had also taken part in an internal review ordered by NHS Tayside into the practice in 2017.

His findings then were generally favourable to the

local oncology team and led him to write in their defence following subsequent criticism in official reports.

He also previously coauthored a paper with one of the doctors involved.

On the conflict of interest disclosure form, Dr Harnett said he had “worked with colleagues from Dundee” and had been an examiner for one of the doctors “but have no personal association”.

The Courier revealed then chief medical officer Catherine Calder wood, senior medical officer for oncology Dr David Dunlop and NHS Tayside were all made aware of the potential conflict of interest in April 2019, months before the review had to be pulled.

The RCP was also made aware but decided to push on with the review because, it says, it had incomplete information and the review team were already in Tayside.

Another panel member, Professor Jonathan Joffe – who had also previously been involved in work at the Dundee unit – had to temporarily withdraw from the review due to family illness, leaving Dr Harnett as the only remaining oncologist in the group.

A complaint was made to the General Medical Council (GMC) the same month but the body initially ruled there had been no conflict of interest and dropped the case.

However, the RCP wrote to Dr Harnett in January last year, stating: “It is our view that a disciplinary offence occurred due to your failure to declare a conflict of interest to the invited service review team in advance of the Tayside invited service review visit.”

The letter served as a reprimand and written warning regarding his conduct, and, while the panel did not believe he set out to deceive, it found he had demonstrated “poor professional judgment”.

This prompted the GMC to reopen and “promote” its own investigation.

In June, it put to the specialist he had dishonestly stated he had no previous involvement in the matter and had no association with NHS Tayside and the individuals involved.

Dr Harnett wrote to the GMC to set out his version of events on July 27 but applied for voluntary erasure from the register two days later, citing “retirement” as the reason.

The specialist said he had made an “incomplete disclosure” following consultation with the Royal College of Radiologists – the same body that had nominated him for the job.

Dr Harnett added: “It is clear to me now that my incomplete disclosure of conflict of interest is considered as a serious professional malpractice which has been followed by punitive action by the Royal College of Physicians in a severe reprimand and return of all fees paid, and is continuing in this GMC action.”

He also argued his support for the oncology team, which he agreed could be included in a Healthcare Improvement Scotland report, was “informal” and that he had no personal relationship with the doctor he had coauthored a paper with.

The GMC found there was no evidence Dr Harnett had knowingly behaved in a dishonest manner and had demonstrated remorse following the RCP ruling.

It did not believe his erasure from the register was necessary to protect the public, nor in the public interest, but said it was satisfied there was sufficient evidence available for the GMC to revive the allegations should he apply for restoration.

The RCP refused to share further information on its disciplinary findings and declined to comment when approached.

NHS Tayside said it flagged up to RCP a potential conflict of interest after being made aware of the members on the panel, “both before the review commenced and at the outset of the visit to NHS Tayside”.

It failed to respond to a request for further comment.

A serious professional malpractice followed by punitive action

ERASED: Dr Harnett.