A CONSULTANT who was suspended from Queen Elizabeth Hospital after blowing the whistle on his managers says he will continue to speak out.

Ramon Niekrash, 50, began writing letters to hospital chiefs in mid-2005 after finding out the urology ward dealing with 1,000 patients per year was being closed.

He claims this meant urology patients, around 40 per cent of whom had cancers, were dispersed throughout the hospital to cut costs and their care suffered as a result while also leaving them at increased risk of infection.

In further letters he warned against reductions in the number of clinical nurse specialists and of a lack of capacity at outpatient clinics.

Mr Niekrash said he was accused of misconduct and labelled a “troublemaker” after repeatedly raising the issues - eventually leading to a 10-week suspension in 2008.

But earlier this month an employment tribunal panel found unanimously in his favour, saying the consultant had only been disciplined by the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Trust after making disclosures to managers in the public interest.

He has now been voted in to represent the entire consultant body as chairman of the hospital’s medical staff committee, a role he will begin in August.

Mr Niekrash told News Shopper: “Despite my letters being written they were probably just filed away.

“I referenced specific cases where patients had been dealt with very badly.

“One patient was given an appointment that was cancelled seven times in a row.”

He said that after his suspension he had no choice but to go to a tribunal.

The consultant said: “There was no option to clear my name other than going to the courts.

“Ultimately the service must be run by a management structure, but people at ground level should be able to raise issues of concern.

“I think staff felt there had been a culture where people were afraid to say what they felt.”

He went on: “I don’t know what the financial cost would be to the trust, but it could have been much better spent on equipment and nurses.

“The good thing is that the consultants had always supported me as a group. Patients have come into clinics congratulating me and thanking me.

“I’ve continued to write letters where I feel they should be written.”

A spokesman for the South London Healthcare Trust, which now runs the hospital, said: “There are lessons to be learned from this case and the new trust absolutely believes in the importance of whistleblowing and encourages any staff members with concerns about patient safety to bring them to the attention of their managers straight away.

“We now have an environment and the correct processes in place so staff can feel confident that they can raise concerns without any fear. We are assured that the issues which led to this case would not have occurred under the new trust management.

“On the specific issue of patient safety, the absolute priority of the new trust is to ensure the quality of care and patient safety. In the nine months since South London Healthcare was created, there have been significant improvements to patient safety.

“It was never the trust's intention to pursue this matter in court. We would have preferred to resolve this issue by dialogue, minimising the drain on the public purse, and we regret that this proved impossible.”

Extracts from the letters

On hospital acquired infections:

“Any patient with a hospital acquired infection at this trust could justifiably seek compensation through the courts if we were found overall wanting in our responsibilities for providing optimal and recommended hospital practices.”

On lack of capacity at clinics:

“You have instigated the many changes to the urology outpatient clinics, and now the consequences are being bitterly felt.”

On ward closures:

“There is no doubt that the quality and consistency of our service is poorer.”

On recruitment:

“The likelihood of recruiting a capable consultant urologist under the current set up appears remote, as no serious contender for a substantive appointment would contemplate applying to this facility.”

On nurse reductions:

“With the potential for nurse practitioner numbers being reduced, it will only make the running of an equivalent service not only difficult but also impossible.”