DR KENNETH LOCKEY
Registration No. 0462343
and
|
|
DECISIONS AND
REASONS
|
|
The Panel heard oral evidence from Dr Lockey the Appellant and Liz Heggarty, Dr Harley and Verna Reynolds on behalf of the PCT.
1. Dr Lockey made an application to Tees (Shared Services) NHS on 26th February 2005, re-dated 14th March 2005. Dr Lockey confirmed that he was removed from Gateshead PCT on his application and provided two names of reference; Dr Ghosh and Dr Swaidah. His work history was incomplete.
2. On 4th April 2005 Dr Lockey contacted the North Tees NHS to confirm that Dr Ghosh had been suspended and volunteered Dr Geogehegan as a substitute reference.
3. On the 12th April 2005 Verna Reynolds wrote to Dr Lockey requesting two alternative clinical references or contact details of one referee plus details of any appraisals or courses attended in the last three years.
No response was received.
4. Following a re-convened meeting on 23rd June 2005 the North Tees PCT Clinical Performance Working Group rejected Dr Lockey’s application on the grounds that to include the applicant in the Performers List would be prejudicial to the efficiency of the service.
5. Dr Lockey received a letter on 1st July 2004 advising him of the decision and now appeals that decision.
The
Appeal
6. Dr Lockey confirmed that the references in one case was over 20 years old. Dr Lockey conceded that any reference over 5 years would not be satisfactory. He confirmed that he was not in a position to provide relevant clinical references due to his working practice. None of the recent locum positions exceeded 3 months without a break.
7. He confirmed he had not recently attended any course and could not remember the date of the last course and could not recall having had any appraisals.
8. Whilst the PCT had properly obtained details of Dr Lockey’s working practice whilst at Gateshead PCT, which had raised some complaints, they confirmed that this did not form part of the decision making process.
Findings
9. The Panel find:
(i) The references which were supplied were not up to date.
(ii) That Dr Lockey has failed to provide alternative satisfactory references.
(iii) That Dr Lockey has failed to provide satisfactory evidence of maintaining continual professional development.
Law
10. Under Section 6(b) of the National Health Service (Performers List) Regulation 2004, and 6(e), the grounds on which a Primary Care Trust may refuse to include a performer in its Performers List are, in addition to any prescribed to the relevant part, that;
(b) Having contacted the referees provided by him under Regulation 4(2)(f) it is not satisfied with the references;
(e) That there are any grounds for considering that admitting him to its Performers List would be prejudicial to the efficiency of the services, which those included in that list perform.
Conclusions
11. The Panel find that for the purposes of Section 6(b), the Appellant has failed to provide the names and addresses of two referees who are willing to provide clinical references relating to two recent posts, as a doctor, which lasted at least three months without a significant break, and where this is not possible a full explanation and alternative referees.
12. The Panel find that the Respondent was justified in refusing the Appellant’s application on the ground of efficiency.
13. Accordingly the Panel uphold the Respondent’s decision and refuse the Appellant’s appeal.
Appeal
14. Finally, in accordance with Rule 42(5) Family Health Services Appeal Authority (Procedure) Rules 2001, we hereby notify the Appellant that he may have rights relating to Appeal under Section 11 of the Tribunal and Enquiries Act 1992.
Dated this 3rd day of November 2005.
Judith R Crisp
Chairman of the Panel
Dr R J Rathi
Professor D Croisdale Appleby