One patient’s shocking exposé of medical malpractice in local healthcare: allegations of criminality, corruption, concealment & silence in the World Heritage city of Bath, UK.A place, where a patient should have been safe, became a House of Horrors!
The General Medical Council said: “These are very serious allegations of bad faith, deceit, fraud & collusion which would obviously affect a doctor’s registration..” ….and then refused to investigate!
1000’s of Ex-Patients Are Left In The Dark – By Design!1. I have no professional or institutional reputation to protect. I am concerned that 1000’s of ex-patients of Grosvenor Place surgery in Bath are unaware that they were being treated by doctors who had untested allegations of deliberate harm of a patient hanging over them. The GMC allowed the doctors to continue to practice for four years without any investigation of these very serious concerns until the surgery’s closure in 2021 (see para 20). As the Post Office Horizon Inquiry & Contaminated Blood Inquiry & others highlight, the prevention of reputational damage is the primary motive that lies behind these scandals. The same is true in this case where the two GP partners put their reputations before a patient’s health and dignity.
2.Small Is Not Good! Grosvenor Pl surgery was a small practice with 3,100 patients. Two partners Jane Davidson (top above) & Nicole Howse worked together for over 20 years, with only one other junior salaried GP employed by the two partners at any one time, with the odd locum filling in. These juniors came and went. The dynamics of this small surgery enabled the two partners alleged corrupt practices because of the lack of peer scrutiny.
3.We Are Not Wrong, We Are Never Wrong! [Even When We Are] The two partners, I allege, corrupted and co-opted their newly employed junior salaried GP only two months after she joined the surgery. The salaried GP failed to pass vital clinical information to multiple consultants over many months as confirmed at para 8. The two partners risked their salaried doctor’s career and freedom to protect their reputations, which tells you all you need to know about them and what they are prepared to do to protect their reputations. This third GP is the weak link in this alleged conspiracy, as she is the one who acted to pervert the diagnostic process. She is the one in legal jeopardy. If, should there ever be an investigation, she doesn’t admit she was co-opted into the two partners’ alleged conspiracy then the wrongdoing is her’s alone. And we don’t know what pressure the two partners put on her to act as she did. 4.We Will Not Be Scrutinised By Our Peers! This couldn’t have happened at a larger practice where there are many GP’s. Peer scrutiny would have made it impossible for the two partners to act as they did. The two partners’ word could not be challenged by other less senior staff. This is particularly true in relation to invisible conditions when the partners formed an early opinion on a patient’s clinical status which they would then refuse to amend regardless of how many times the patient returned reporting their concerns with the same issues, in my case, time after time. They couldn’t be wrong; the patient was wrong! In patient surveys the practice had a listening rating of only 87% which was lower than any other surgery in Bath by at least 4%. The partners, I believe, had issues with ego, self-awareness and self-critical insight and reflection which meant they couldn’t critically address their opinions and behaviour. They were omnipotent and ran the surgery like their personal fiefdom where their word couldn’t be challenged. They played God! The two partners took advantage of the dynamics of the small surgery to protect their reputations. Birds of a feather……
5. What The Doctors Did – Are You Serious?That’s Fucked Up! For 10 years the two partners denied I could have the disease in question. When I eventually managed to compel them to consult with specialists [which was a struggle] they had a choice. Either be honest with the consultants about my clinical history which would mean being diagnosed or lie to the consultants and prevent a diagnosis and exposure of their 10-year failure to do so. They chose the latter. They knew it was very likely their patient had walked out of the surgery ill and untreated with a serious infection – all I needed was some antibiotics – and then went back to caring for their other patients. To allegedly deliberately prevent a diagnosis and leave a patient ill with a serious disease and then carry on as if nothing had happened gives rise to concerns the two partners potentially have serious unrecognised psychological issues. 99.999% of doctors would have allowed a diagnosis and treated a patient in those circumstances and then decided whether to admit fault or deny but WOULD NOT leave their patient ill to protect their reputations! They have also denied that any consultations took place over the ten years as they failed to record my repeated concerns in the medical notes. This is obviously a huge red flag to me as multiple consultations took place between 2005-15. Their lies are brazen and no attempt has been made to conceal them from me. There are two first-hand consultant witnesses, who both know they were deceived but have failed to report the alleged deliberate harm.
6. Surely This Won’t Be Covered-Up? You would think that if a member of the public raised such serious alleged criminal behaviour by doctors, that NHSE and all regulators would insist on an investigation in the public-interest, but the exact opposite occurred. No one wanted to investigate and expose, not a lone wolf actor but three white female GP’s conspiring to harm a patient over many months. NHSE’s Decision Tree on Dealing with Concerns in Primary Care states that allegations of deliberate harm should result in suspension and an investigation using the Serious Incident Framework where a suitable level of resources is applied, and is commensurate to the seriousness of the allegations. No SIF was applied to this case, no Notifiable Safety Incident or Never Event was reported, and the legally enforceable Duty of Candour was unlawfully not upheld. Would it surprise you to know the CQC, which enforces the DoC, did nothing despite the untested allegations representing a potential threat to 1000’s of patients over a 20 year period?
7. Show Me The Clinical Imperatives! I have multiple documents with quotes from two first-hand consultant witnesses which give potential to the allegations; glaring omissions in the medical notes, emails, write ups of phone conversations for the entire period of the consultations, over many months, where ALL CLINICAL IMPERATIVES ie. the reasons for the consultations taking place, are completely absent; and a quote from the junior salaried GP which shows possible intent to deceive (see para 13).
8. The First Consultant Has Steam Coming Out of His Ears! For example, the first consultant witness, who was involved in all the consultations over many months, replied to me only 20 mins after I contacted him about the strange medical notes and giving him my correct clinical history; “I am sorry there does seem to have been some disparity in the various discussions around your symptoms.”ie. in every consultation with the junior salaried GP, over many months, and confirms my allegation clinical history was not passed to him. This disparity document was not disclosed to the clinical reviewer by NHSE (see para 16). The question that therefore needs answering is whether there was intent to deceive. Only an investigation can confirm or refute that. He was very angry and now realised he had been lied to repeatedly. He sent a curt email to this GP only 10 mins later stating; “For information!” repeating the quote above to her. This email was not in my notes, and I only discovered it later.
9.That Clinical Decision Is Very, Very Wrong! The first consultant concluded treatment wasn’t warranted after the first set of discussions with the junior salaried GP. Only he was consulted at this stage. A while later I sought and received a second opinion from another consultant. I did so because of the bizarre, non-evidence based, denial of a diagnosis. [This first consultant never spoke to me. He only communicated with the junior salaried GP by email and phone.] I gave this second consultant my correct clinical history including a diagnosis of the disease given in 2009 by an out of hours health centre in Bath which had been inadequately treated with antibiotics as per NICE and WAS recorded in my medical notes.. 10.Two Infections – Two Intransigent & Ill Informed Doctors! With hindsight I now knew why a diagnosis and treatment was denied by the first consultant. The two partners had spectacularly failed by not following up on the clinical diagnosis in 2009 as they were instructed to do. They were both very dismissive of the possibility of having the disease because they were unaware that Bath is deemed a high-risk area for the infection. One partner signed off on the diagnosis from the health centre but didn’t follow up. A while later, as my symptoms worsened and I became aware of the inadequate treatment as per NICE, the second partner angrily dismissed my concerns about the diagnosis and inadequate treatment and denied further antibiotics. Yes, you’ve guessed it – this was never recorded in my notes! This was after she had raised the possibility of a separate infection in 2005 when I reported a bite, rash and flu-like aches but immediately dismissed my concerns because “….you’d be seriously ill if you had it!” From there on in I was never getting a diagnosis no matter what symptoms I presented with because she had pronounced I couldn’t have it, and her word could not be wrong! Regardless, she should have treated under the precautionary principle in medicine based on the symptoms I was reporting. And these two consultations in May and July 2005 with this doctor are also not recorded in the notes! [The long-running and inappropriate shenanigans at the surgery between 2005-15 will be the subject of another blog.] 11.Crunch Time!The Motive is Now Clear! By forcing the two partners to consult with a specialist in 2015 these failings would be exposed if the partners had told the truth. They had sufficient clinical evidence on the record from 2009 – the diagnosis – to give treatment without needing to consult with anyone else. The two partners knew they risked reputational harm and were potentially negligent if I was now diagnosed with the disease in 2015. This was the motive for their corrupt actions. As scandal after scandal in public life has recently demonstrated – protecting reputation is placed before doing the right thing. For this reason – their motive – the first consultant was wilfully not told of the diagnosis by the junior salaried GP (see para 8) and multiple other symptoms of the disease that I was experiencing. The two partners had successfully, and criminally, conspired to prevent diagnosis leaving a patient ill with a serious disease and worsening symptoms. 12.The Truth Sets You Free & Gets You A Diagnosis !In a letter to the surgery in late 2015 this second consultant – my consultant – given the correct clinical history by me (see para 9) – stated;“[His] ….symptoms are entirely consistent with late-stage Lyme disease.” Even WithA Lie! My consultant then spoke with the first consultant. She recognised immediately that he was not aware of the clinical diagnosis and other history. I was emailed by her associate asking me to confirm I did indeed have a clinical diagnosis on my record. I confirmed I did. I deleted this email as I was unaware of its significance or that a conspiracy to deny a diagnosis and treatment was ongoing at the surgery. They now deny sending this email. 13.Lying Bastards! The comment below in an email sent by the first consultant to mine led to the email above from the associate asking me to confirm the diagnosis. The first consultant made the quote below after all consultations with the junior salaried GP had finished. “The patient now stresses the rash in 2009, although the GP says it was not a predominant feature in the story before.” Patently if the first consultant had been told of the diagnosis and inadequate treatment – the reasons for the consultations taking place – he couldn’t make the statement above. It’s not possible to know of the clinical diagnosis and to make the above statement. The two positions are incompatible. The GP has clearly misled the consultant and shows possible intent to deceive as she is falsely implying it’s the patient who is claiming he has had the classic bulls-eye rash and is not a doctor given diagnosis on the record. The patient’s opinion is to be doubted, questioned and disregarded. Unfortunately for the junior salaried GP my record clearly states in 2009:“Rash w. typical central white area…suggest Lyme titrates.” The first consultant, after months of discussions in two separate tranches, does not know about this quote & diagnosis. A bulls-eye rash or erythema migrans rash is 100% diagnostic of Lyme disease without even the need for a test as per NICE. The GP at the health centre even checked to find the site of the bite using a magnifying glass. If the first consultant knew any of this he can’t make the nonsensical and inaccurate statement above. 14. Silence PrevailsBut Doesn’t Stop Retaliation! My consultant’s associate also stated to me in an email during the consultations – when they realised what was happening: “It’s probably best to leave and go to another surgery.” My consultant knows of the deliberate harm but has remained silent. I asked her to come forward and report it. In reply her organisation stated: “People can not just ‘give support’ (their inverted commas) in this sort of situation without risk. The help desk is important to a lot of people. ”This demonstrates a clear fear of retaliation and reprisal by NHSE for speaking-up. This consultant was separately employed by NHSE, while their organisation also had a separate working relationship with NHSE whereby the consultant had permission to give advice to GP’s regarding patients on an individual case by case basis. Because her involvement led directly to the unravelling and exposure of the conspiracy she was prevented from consulting with other surgeries again. They didn’t speak-up and still suffered retaliation! 15.What’s Wrong?! They also stated:“…we tried to put things right when we saw them going wrong. ”Therefore, provably, something wrong did occur during the consultations. Despite all of the documentary evidence above and this last quote, the GMC stated: “There is no evidence anything wrong happened during the consultations. ”The GMC’s first and primary statutory duty is to protect patients, and in this, they utterly failed to do so, leaving the two partners practicing for a further four years without investigation. 16.What Investigation? NHSE has stated on at least 12 occasions there has been a full investigation, but this is false, as I will prove (see para 17). A senior doctor undertook a clinical review of this case. It was designed to fail; designed NOT to uncover any wrongdoing. The review was deskbound; the three GP’s, the two witnesses and I have never been spoken to or interviewed; documents were not sought; fundamental questions were not asked, nor answered; and as I’m also about to prove, the disparity email (para 8) from the first consultant to me was not disclosed to the reviewer by NHSE. I passed the disparity email to NHSE one day after receiving it from the consultant. In his report 3 months later, the clinical reviewer states: “I have seen Mr H-B’s letter [to the consultant] but have not seen any reply [from the consultant].” 17. The Horse’s Mouth NHSE had this document in their possession for the prior 3 months! This disparity email is the single most significant piece of documentary evidence as it gives potential to the allegations of fraud and conspiracy, and is why NHSE withheld it from the clinical reviewer. Furthermore, on the day the reviewer passed his report to NHSE, he stated in his accompanying email to them; “I think it is important that he [Mr H-B] appreciates this is not an investigation as such. ”This statement from the horse’s mouth proves what is already patently evident; there has never been an investigation of these criminal allegations. This email was withheld from me at the time by NHSE and came to light only several years later. NHSE’s repeated falsehoods that there has been an investigation is further evidence of the obvious cover-up that has taken place. NHSE conducted a Potemkin exercise to deceive. 18. MP Mrs Hobhouse’s Involvement[Or Lack There Of] I went to my MP only after trying to get the regulators to act. I had two meetings with her, one including Whistleblowers UK, and she agreed to write to NHSE asking for an investigation where all parties were interviewed with fitting resources given to an investigation of criminal wrongdoing. 19.My MP Is Lied To But That’s OK With Her! NHSE lied to my MP stating: “…every element of Mr H-B’s complaint has been investigated.” She knows she has been lied to, but apparently it’s acceptable for NHSE’s National Director of Primary Care to lie to MP’s. The MP then refused to help further. She hadn’t fully comprehended the true nature of the seriousness of the allegations at first. She then became aware that local & regional senior NHSE staff were involved in concealing the alleged criminal acts. As serious criminal acts have been covered-up by senior NHSE staff, rather than mistakes, and those staff must or should have known those acts were criminal and would result in a public course of justice, it may amount to conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The MP didn’t want the politically difficult situation of challenging local NHS leaders with whom she meets regularly. Realpolitik took over and she declined to act to protect her constituents. If local health leaders are prepared to help conceal some of the worst crimes GP’s could commit what else would they cover-up?
20. NHSE Now Has A Big Problem This was April 2020. In Oct 2020 she was told privately that the surgery was going to permanently close in March 2021 at the end of the contract year. This was announced publicly in Nov 2020, via a speedy managed dispersal of patients. There was now traction in this matter, as an MP was now aware of the allegations, and had called for an investigation. I allege NHSE acted AGAIN to conceal the GP’s wrongdoing by probably refusing to renew the two partners’ contracts and forcing the closure of the surgery. The MP claims the closure had nothing to do with her call for an investigation. So, the GP’s not only had the most serious untested criminal allegations hanging over them which NHSE was concealing, but apparently there was an even more substantial reason for the surgery’s closure. I believe this is disingenuous of my MP who also, apparently, when told of the surgery’s closure in Oct 2020, didn’t say a word. You’d think, when told, the MP might have said ‘That’s a coincidence, as I called for a full investigation only a few months ago’ but she didn’t. NHSE couldn’t have closed the surgery any quicker without raising suspicions, and remember this was at the time of the Covid outbreak when nothing else happened for 3 months between March and July 2020 other than dealing with the pandemic. If an alternative reason for the surgery’s closure has been given eg. the pandemic, this is merely another falsehood to conceal the GP’s alleged crimes. 21. MP Declines to Challenge Serious Criminality in Her Home City I asked my MP to call for a police investigation as there were and are clear potential implications for patient safety over a 20 year period. She said she would pass the file to the police but not herself call for a police investigation. Why is the MP willing to call for NHSE to investigate but not the police when the allegations are clearly criminal in nature? Without an investigation 1000’s of ex-patients will never know of the serious untested concerns. NHSE’s motive for the cover-up is clear; concealment of very rare criminality by 3 GP’s to prevent reputational damage. 22.What The Hell Are MP’s For?! MP’s act for constituents in situations where their authority and influence are necessary to get traction and overcome obstacles eg. the PO scandal. I have fought very hard for several years to try to inform and protect 1000’s of my fellow Bath residents. To be wilfully ignored for so long for telling very uncomfortable truths is very challenging. But I don’t represent those 1000’s of residents, my MP does! So why is she not helping to protect her constituents and call for the police to investigate or for a truly independent investigation by NHSE? Why is she leaving it to a constituent with no influence to act on behalf of 1000’s of her constituents? It’s entirely inappropriate, and leaves 1000’s of ex-patients unaware of the concerns and unable to voice theirs, and health leaders in place to cover-up more wrongdoing. This is a very serious abdication of her duty and solely for her own political benefit rather than for the benefit of her constituents. 23.The Crimes – Custodial Sentences If Proven! The alleged crimes have no statute of limitations, are indictable offences and in the public interest to investigate: Fraud Act 2006: Fraud by false representation; by failing to disclose information; by abuse of position. Conspiracy & attempted conspiracy to prevent diagnosis [& treatment] of serious infection. Wilful neglect & ill treatment s20 [Criminal Justice & Courts Act 2015] I’ve been smeared, threatened, false allegations, the whole nine yards! The usual NHS playbook. The cover-up itself is evidence my concerns have merit; a cover-up is not instigated if there’s nothing to cover-up! NHSE is prepared to make false criminal allegations against WB doctors so what chance do I have? The alleged crimes are so serious they will do what is necessary to protect reputations, as the evidence above clearly demonstrates. 24.What Would You Want for Your Family? If your family, friends, neighbours, colleagues had been registered at that practice you and they would want an investigation. Police officers, their families, relatives and colleagues would have been registered at the practice over the years too! 25.Conclusion – The Rarest of the Rare!A Crime Laden Farrago! If the two partners allegedly deliberately harmed once over many, many months to protect their reputations, in such a premeditated, malicious, cruel and cynical manner, and was not incidental to their work or a one-off momentary loss of control or temper, but integral to it, then obviously there must be a serious risk to other patients. They succeeded once in preventing a diagnosis. I only unwittingly overcame this alleged conspiracy by getting the second opinion which exposed it all. But they still attempted to prevent a diagnosis a second time! [As shown by para 13]. This shows their serious criminal intent. I had been deliberately left ill and untreated for months with a serious infection by the 3 GP’s and they tried to sustain that position. They did it all over again in the second tranche of consultations to try to criminally prevent their patient receiving medical care/ treatment! Imagine if it had been an elderly or vulnerable patient who accepted the outcome of the corrupted consultations and didn’t seek a second opinion. They would be going back to the surgery, time after time, with the same symptoms and the two partners would know what they had done but would be telling the patient ‘We’ve consulted with an expert and there’s nothing wrong with you’. That would appear to demonstrate seriously disturbed behaviour by the doctors and a very clear risk to other patients. 26. A Very British Disease? Regulatory Capture Strikes Again! The GMC said: “These are very serious allegations of bad faith, deceit, fraud and collusion which would obviously affect a doctor’s registration” But refused to investigate despite not knowing if the allegations of deliberate harm were true. The GMC allowed the 3 GP’s to continue practising and treating 3,100 patients with no investigation for four years! Those patients had no knowledge of the serious untested allegations hanging over their GP’s. This confirms what the Shipman Inquiry Chair stated, “The GMC protects doctors not patients.” 27. The Professional Standards Authority (GMC’s regulator) states: “All allegations of violence and dishonesty against doctors should be investigated even where there is no evidence as a failure to do so doesn’t protect the public/patients.” GMC failed to do so. Shipman wasn’t caught by the GMC, police, patients or other doctors, but by the daughter of one of his victims who noticed his poor attempt at forging a will. 28. Acting in the Public Interest or Putting Self Before Citizens? Our MP needs to act to protect her constituents. Thousands of ex-patients have no idea about the untested criminal allegations against their former GP’s, who have been allowed to ‘retire’ without investigation or sanction. Our MP must not place all the burden on one individual resident to expose the three GP’s alleged crimes and The System wide cover-up of those crimes. The public interest is very clear. It’s her duty, her covenant with her constituents that she must uphold, to try to protect the 1000’s of ex-patients, and 85k residents of Bath left at risk at the hands of local health leaders who will cover-up serious crimes rather than protect the public.If doctors can get away with this level of criminality, with some of the worst crimes you could commit against a patient and aren’t held to account then we are all at risk of harm, all the time! None of us are safe, ever! Greg Hartley-Brewer6th June 2024 N.B. This is the first in a series of blogs. This first blog exposes the two GP’s at the centre of the alleged wrongdoing. The cover-up of these alleged crimes is multi-layered, involving many different parties and individuals. Witnesses who failed to report the deliberate harm; individuals from NHSE at national, regional & local level who acted to cover-up the concerns; regulators who wilfully failed to act; local GP’s who gaslit the patient rather than help; and others. Over the next few weeks in periodic blogs I will name all persons involved in the cover-up of these alleged crimes. Each blog will cover a different element of that cover-up. If any named individuals believe I’m defaming them they can take the matter to court. My defence is; the truth; honest opinion; & acting in the public interest. It’s not the actions of the three GP’s that has caused the most lasting psychological and physical harm (separate to the disease itself). You might expect to meet a few bad apples in this journey of life, even if they all come at once! But what really kills you is that ALL those whose statutory duty it is to protect patients and uphold and remedy serious injustices wilfully failed to act or demonstrated wilful blindness. These individuals were more interested in protecting institutional reputations than patients, and, by not sticking their heads above the parapet, their monthly pay cheques. This behaviour appears to be endemic in the healthcare & regulatory landscape in the UK where a Wild West of wrongdoing is allowed to flourish because those parties can act with impunity due to regulatory capture, light-touch regulation & the failure of the police & legal system to hold these bodies and their staff to account. Things have to change, and soon!
Watch this space! Key words: Drs & GP’s Jane Davidson & Nicole Howse Bath, Grosvenor Place surgery MP Wera Hobhouse Crime, Public Health, Public safety, Cover-up, Public interest.
