NHS Tayside could have halted disgraced surgeon years earlier, inquiry hears

NHS Tayside should have prevented disgraced neurosurgeon Sam Eljamel from operating years before he was eventually suspended, a public inquiry has heard.

The inquiry is examining how concerns about Eljamel’s clinical practice were handled while he worked at Ninewells Hospital in Dundee. He was employed as a consultant neurosurgeon between 1995 and 2014, rising to become head of the department before being suspended in December 2013.

Giving evidence, NHS Tayside executive medical director Dr James Cotton acknowledged that action should have been taken earlier. The inquiry heard that concerns had emerged over a number of years, but the systems in place failed to bring together information that could have exposed the scale of the risk to patients.

Eljamel has been accused of harming numerous people through unnecessary or poorly performed operations, leaving some with life-changing injuries. Former patients have spent years campaigning for answers about why he was allowed to continue practising despite complaints and warning signs.

He was placed under clinical supervision in June 2013 while his work was reviewed, but was not suspended until December that year. Questions have repeatedly been raised about whether the supervision arrangements were sufficient and why he was permitted to continue operating during that period.

The inquiry is considering whether NHS Tayside responded appropriately to concerns, whether its governance and patient-safety systems were effective and whether Eljamel was suspended quickly enough. Its terms of reference specifically include the timeliness and effectiveness of the supervision imposed upon him.

Eljamel resigned from NHS Tayside in 2014 and removed himself from the General Medical Register the following year. He is believed to have since returned to Libya.

The hearings have already exposed wider concerns about communication, record-keeping and accountability. NHS Tayside previously admitted that patients had been let down and apologised for the additional distress caused by the organisation’s response.

For those harmed, however, the central question remains why repeated opportunities to intervene did not result in decisive action. The latest evidence strengthens the argument that this was not simply the story of one surgeon’s conduct, but of an organisation that failed to recognise and respond to a developing patient-safety crisis.

The inquiry, chaired by Lord Weir, continues.

Stay informed with the stories shaping health and social care.