Professional negligence

To The Daily Telegraph

The inquiry into Ian Paterson, the rogue breast cancer surgeon, has shocked the British public, and rightly so.

How is it that Paterson could avoid scrutiny for so long? The reality is that there are no meaningful regular checks and balances on the performance and outcomes of individual surgeons and anaesthetists. Unlike airline pilots, who have compulsory simulator assessments of competency every six months, surgeons can go their entire career without being scrutinised in theatre by their peers. The current appraisal and revalidation system does little to assess a surgeon’s behaviour, clinical skills or dexterity.

There will be more cases such as Paterson’s until we subject surgeons (and other doctors) to the same rigorous scrutiny that is applied to pilots by the Civil Aviation Authority.

David Allen MBBS, Chichester, West Sussex

To The Daily Telegraph

In the late 1970s I was a detective sergeant serving at Carter Street, the busiest station in London. We had a detective chief inspector, two detective inspectors and four detective sergeants, who had four detective constables under them.

Each detective had to pass an intensive course before being allowed to investigate crimes. There were about ten “major” crimes reported each day; all scenes were visited, with the victims interviewed and statements taken. We also dealt with prisoners brought in by uniform colleagues, prepared prosecution papers for the solicitors’ department or the Director of Public Prosecutions, attended court and undertook the prosecutions prior to trial. We were professional, efficient and actually solved crimes.

Nowadays, reporting a crime is only useful for insurance purposes, and you will only speak to a police officer if you have CCTV to use as evidence.

Bring back the old days.

Paul Slaughter, Alsager, Cheshire