Royal Derby Hospital names doctor at centre of treatment claims
DERBY and Burton’s hospital trust lawyers has confirmed Daniel Hay is the former doctor alleged to have harmed patients in his care.
The University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust had refused to confirm or deny the identity of the former Royal Derby Hospital consultant in obstetrics and gynaecology.
This is despite Mr Hay, 55, from Alfreton, confirming himself in a national newspaper interview that he is the doctor under review. A growing number of women who have been contacted by the trust as part of the review confirmed the same.
Neither NHS England or the General Medical Council would confirm or deny the identity of Mr Hay.
Now, a statement approved by Browne Jacobson – the law firm representing the trust – following talks with fellow law firm Freeths sees the hospital confirm Mr Hay as the subject under review.
It says: “Freeths solicitors, who are now representing over 30 of Mr Hay’s former patients, have had a very useful discussion with the representatives from the Derby trust.
“We are hoping to agree a framework to move the case forward which will progress quickly and cost-effectively and, very importantly, provide Mr Hay’s patients with the answers to questions they have arising from their treatment.
“It is clear it is going to be a significant and complex ongoing investigation and claims process and it is important that all parties work together to make it as painless as possible for Mr Hay’s patients.”
A number of former patients of Mr Hay’s have already raised their concerns and urged the trust to answer their questions.
A Derby woman in her 40s is the latest to have spoken out. She had a hysterectomy performed by Mr Hay in April 2018 and claims she developed an internal infection. She has also had repeated water infections,
which she claims she had not had issues with before her operation.
The woman claims she was not provided with alternatives to the hysterectomy. The trust says she had been offered an MRI scan.
She had an appointment with Mr Hay in August 2018, after the trust says he stopped “clinical activity”, and a letter she was sent confirming post-operation talks was electronically signed by Mr Hay in September 2018. The letter also says she was seen by someone other than Mr Hay in August, which she denies.
“I feel as if it is my word against his and I am not lying. This is not something you forget, I am speechless. I saw Mr Hay,” she said.
The hospital trust was asked to comment on the patient’s claim but said it could not investigate without the woman’s name or appointment date, which she at this stage wants to keep confidential.
The hospital trust did not clarify when asked what it defined as “clinical activity”.
Under law, clinical activities are defined as any activities under the practitioner’s control which directly or indirectly relate to a patient, diagnostic or treatment.
The patient’s meeting with Mr Hay in August 2018 was to discuss her hysterectomy.
The patient has received a letter from the trust outlining that her case is one of those involved in the review of Mr Hay’s work.
She said: “And to get a letter from the trust during lockdown with almost no information but to say my case is under review and then to call up and not get any answers, it is disgusting. I think it is really wrong. I am upset and angry
“I just want reassurance and I would ask anyone else to come forward. It is only by talking that we are going to find out what did and what is going on, and get to the bottom of it all.”
Other women have come forward claiming problems they have suffered, individually, following surgeries carried out by Mr Hay.
Among their claims are symptoms such as unnecessary pain, significant abdominal pain, uncontrolled and abnormal bleeding problems, severe mental health issues, infected wounds, burns and temporary paralysis.
The hospital trust has repeatedly stressed it will comment on concerns raised by named patients and could not comment further.
Dr Magnus Harrison, executive medical director, said: “The trust would like to send our sincere apologies to all of the women that the independent review has identified as being harmed. We are working closely with NHS England to establish the full facts of the care provided by the consultant in question and this investigation is still ongoing.”