Tuesday, 15 January 2019

Crime Might Not Pay, But General Practice Sure Does!

The tribunal report read: “The tribunal was satisfied that the chance that Dr Makhdum will seek to practise medicine again is very low.
“It noted that he is approaching 62-years-old and has practised for over 35 years. The tribunal has been provided with evidence that he has not worked for the last year, that he is effectively retired, and is not financially dependent on continuing to practise medicine.”
I wonder why?
The tribunal found that Dr Mohammad Makhdum, who worked in Essex and Suffolk, had recommended nine patients to be cared for by agencies he had a financial stake in. As part of a scheme devised to boost and improve community care, Mr Makhdum sent patients to two firms, making financial gains. It happened between 2010 and 2011, according to the Medical Practitioners Tribunal report, with a misconduct report just published.
Mr Makhdum also worked for the Suffolk NHS Mental Health Partnership Trust, Norfolk and Suffolk Foundation Trust (NSFT) at the time when he sent mental health patients to Focus Care Agency and Vital Healthcare Services.
He contributed to the purchase of several properties for the agencies in Ipswich and owned a 50 per cent stake in Blackstone Healthcare, which held a majority stake in both Vital and Focus, at the time of the referrals, according to the report.
Dr Makhdum failed to declare these interests to his employers, the tribunal found. After the discovery of his interests he was dismissed in 2012.
He's not a doctor. He's a farmer!
“The tribunal noted that no risk to the safety of patients or the public generally was alleged by the General Medical Council. Any risk to the public that could be inferred from a lack of probity in a doctor would be entirely negated by the erasure of that doctor from the register and their ceasing to practise entirely.”
So, basically, he's got away with it.


Ted Treen said...

We all know that the GMC would have given Shipman just a strongly worded telling off, but this miscreant's forename suggests that he belongs to the untouchable-by-the-law demographic, so any form of penalty was never on the table.

JuliaM said...

Good point!