Three month suspension for ‘dishonest’ doctor in Gwent

Appearing before a misconduct hearing last month, Dr Omar Mansour admitted to observing a nurse perform a catheterisation on a patient, before later completing feedback claiming to be the nurse and writing that it was he who had carried out the procedure.

He would later claim in an email and during a face-to-face exchange that it was the nurse who had completed the feedback herself.

The incident took place in May 2019, at Nevill Hall Hospital in Abergavenny.

Later that year on October 4, Dr Mansour – who was at the time a foundation doctor - was instructed by a senior clinician to arrange an MRI scan for a patient, which it is alleged that he failed to do.

He was then alleged to have given a false impression that an examination had taken place when presenting his overall examination result to the senior clinician.

What happened at the tribunal?

Appearing before the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) between Monday, March 14, and Tuesday, March 22, Dr Mansour admitted to writing the feedback as if he was the nurse, and that it was not he who carried out the procedure on a patient.

While Dr Mansour denied the face-to-face exchange between the nurse and himself, evidence provided by the nurse was sufficient for the tribunal to rule against the doctor.

Investigating the alleged failure to organise an MRI scan, the tribunal found that there was no evidence as to the instructions that Dr Mansour had received, and the allegation was not proved.

However, claims that he had given a false impression that an examination had taken place were proven.

One section of the tribunal has not been made publicly available.

What did Dr Mansour say?

Appearing at the hearing, Dr Mansour said that he was “ashamed of his behaviour but has tried to look at it positively rather than negatively”.

Continuing, he said: “he had been immature and made mistakes and this has made him realise that he can step forward and take responsibility and contribute to the NHS.”

As part of his statement, he said that he took a “casual approach to being organised” at the time, and that he struggled to take such things seriously.

Dr Mansour told the tribunal that he “has changed a lot since the events” and he hoped a member of the public would appreciate that he was immature at the time, and this was no longer the case.

It was also revealed during the tribunal that Dr Mansour has since apologised to the nurse involved in the initial incident, along with issuing an apology to the MPTS.

What punishment was handed out?

At the conclusion of the hearing, it was determined that the incident in October 2019 “does not meet the test for serious misconduct", with the redacted section of the hearing said to have “have had an impact on how Dr Mansour behaved”.

This was said to have shaped the interactions between the doctor and his superior.

But, considering the May incident, the report said: “The tribunal considered that this did meet the threshold for serious misconduct as it was a dishonest act which fell significantly short of standards of good medical practice.”

Continuing, “the tribunal concluded that Dr Mansour acted in a premeditated way for his own gain, namely to meet the targets for his competencies.

“The tribunal considered that Dr Mansour’s conduct in relation to the May incident breached the fundamental tenets of the profession and would be considered deplorable by fellow practitioners.”

However, despite his actions, it was ruled that there was some evidence of remediation on Dr Mansour’s part – including undertaking a day-long ethics course, and possessing a clean record in the years that have followed.

The tribunal also received positive testimonials from senior medical staff on Dr Mansour’s behalf.

According to the report published at the end of the hearing, “the tribunal concluded that Dr Mansour was young at the time of the allegation in May 2019 and a combination of immaturity and arrogance had led to his behaviour.”

But ultimately, it was ruled that Dr Mansour’s fitness to practice was impaired, being struck off was deemed disproportionate, and he was instead issued with a three month suspension from practicing.

A longer suspension was ruled out as it was not considered to be in the public’s interest to have an “otherwise capable doctor” training and working for a lengthy period of time.

As there is no risk to public safety associated with the case, the suspension is set to commence 28 days from the suspension notice being served.