Download PDF document - Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service

Record of Determinations –
Medical Practitioners Tribunal
PUBLIC RECORD
Dates: 09/01/2017 – 11/01/2017
Medical Practitioner’s name: Dr Jan Carsten RADEKE
GMC reference number:
4493923
Primary medical qualification:
State Exam Med 1990 Johann-Wolfgang
Goethe Universität Frankfurt
Type of case
New - Determination by other regulator
Outcome on impairment
Impaired
Summary of outcome
Suspension, 5 months.
Review hearing directed
Tribunal:
Lay Tribunal Member (Chair)
Mrs Joy Hamilton
Medical Tribunal Member:
Dr Martin Johnson
Medical Tribunal Member:
Dr Neil Smart
Legal Assessor:
Mr David Marshall
Tribunal Clerk:
Miss Miriam Bonabana
Attendance and Representation:
Medical Practitioner:
Not present and represented
Medical Practitioner’s Representative:
Mr Martin Forde, QC, instructed by
Weightmans Solicitors
Ms Rosalind Emsley-Smith, Counsel
GMC Representative:
Allegation and Findings of Fact
That being registered under the Medical Act 1983, as amended:
MPT: Dr RADEKE
1
Record of Determinations –
Medical Practitioners Tribunal
1. On 31 July 2014, the Professional Conduct Committee ('the Committee') of the
General Dental Council ('GDC') determined that your fitness to practise was impaired
by reason of your misconduct. Admitted and Found Proved
2. On 2 June 2016, the Committee determined:
a. that your fitness to practise was currently impaired; Admitted and
Found Proved
b. to suspend your name from the dental register for a period of 12 months.
Admitted and Found Proved
And that by reason of the matters set out above your fitness to practise is impaired
because of the determination by the GDC.
Attendance of Press / Public
The hearing was all heard in public.
Determination on Facts and Impairment- 11/01/2017
Mr Forde QC:
Facts
Admissions
1.
On behalf of Dr Radeke, you admitted paragraphs 1 and 2 of the allegation in
its entirety. The Tribunal announced these facts as admitted and found proved.
Tribunal’s findings
2.
The Tribunal has made the following findings on the facts:
3.
That being registered under the Medical Act 1983 (as amended):
1. On 31 July 2014, the Professional Conduct Committee ('the Committee') of
the General Dental Council ('GDC') determined that your fitness to practise
was impaired by reason of your misconduct. Admitted and Found Proved
2. On 2 June 2016, the Committee determined:
b. that your fitness to practise was currently impaired; Admitted and
Found Proved
MPT: Dr RADEKE
2
Record of Determinations –
Medical Practitioners Tribunal
b. to suspend your name from the dental register for a period of 12
months. Admitted and Found Proved
Impairment
4.
Having announced its findings on the facts, the Tribunal has now considered
whether, on the basis of the facts found proved, Dr Radeke’s fitness to practise is
currently impaired by reason of the determination of the GDC. The Tribunal has
taken into account all the evidence before it and the submissions made by Ms
Emsley-Smith on behalf of the General Medical Council (GMC), those made by you
on Dr Radeke’s behalf and the advice given by the Legal Assessor.
Background
5.
The Tribunal noted that Dr Radeke qualified in Germany as a Doctor of
Medicine and of Dentistry and he was employed by King’s College Hospital London
(KCH) from 2002, first as a staff grade oral surgeon and then from May 2008 as a
full-time consultant in Oral Surgery in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial
Surgery. He held registration both with the GMC and the GDC and he was on the
GDC Specialist List for Oral Surgery.
6.
On 17 May 2013 the GDC received a referral from KCH NHS Foundation Trust
(the Trust). Allegations relating to Patient X, Patient Y and Patient Z were referred to
a Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) of the GDC for consideration. In July 2014
the PCC went on to make a number of findings of fact in respect of Dr Radeke’s
clinical performance and honesty, and found that they amounted to misconduct. Dr
Radeke’s fitness to practise was found to be impaired at that time and it was
directed that his name be erased from the GDC’s register. Dr Radeke appealed
against that order and an appeal hearing was held between 17 and 19 February
2015. On 24 March 2015, Mr Justice Turner handed down the judgement of the
court. The PCC’s finding of dishonesty was quashed, and the case was remitted back
to the GDC to reconsider sanction. Dr Radeke’s case was heard in June 2016 by a
differently constituted PCC. At that hearing, the PCC determined to suspend Dr
Radeke’s registration for a period of 12 months.
GMC submissions
7.
Ms Emsley-Smith reminded the Tribunal that the GDC determined in June
2016 that Dr Radeke’s fitness to practise was impaired and deemed it necessary to
suspend his registration for a period of 12 months to protect both patients and the
wider public interest. Ms Emsley-Smith submitted that the incidents which gave rise
to Dr Radeke’s last hearing occurred in and before 2012 and that Dr Radeke has
been subject to investigations since then. She accepted the impact these ongoing
proceedings would have on Dr Radeke. Nonetheless, she submitted that the
Tribunal’s primary focus should be the protection of patients and the public interest.
MPT: Dr RADEKE
3
Record of Determinations –
Medical Practitioners Tribunal
8.
Ms Emsley-Smith drew the Tribunal’s attention to the transcript where the
PCC had considered the Judgement of Dame Janet Smith in CHRE v NMC
& Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin) in which guidance is given about considering
whether or not a doctor is impaired. Ms Emsley-Smith submitted that Dr Radeke did
put patients at unwarranted risk of harm, one of whom subsequently died. She
submitted that his actions had brought his profession into disrepute and also
breached fundamental tenets of the profession. She submitted that, notwithstanding
the action taken by the GDC, this Tribunal was still under an obligation to protect
patients and the wider public interest, as the concerns also related to matters
governed by this regulatory body.
9.
Ms Emsley-Smith referred the Tribunal to Good Medical Practice (GMP)
(November 2006 Edition) and to the relevant paragraphs contained within. She
submitted that the failures identified by the GDC, made clear that Dr Radeke
breached fundamental tenets of both the medical and dental profession, thereby
bringing them into disrepute. She stated that in order for the Tribunal to form a view
as to whether Dr Radeke’s fitness to practise is currently impaired, the Tribunal
should take account of the way in which he has acted in the past. She reminded the
Tribunal that Dr Radeke is still subject to suspension by the GDC and submitted that
a finding of impairment must be made, irrespective of remediation, in order to
protect patients and the public interest. She submitted that it cannot be right for this
Tribunal to take no action on the basis that the GDC has already taken action in
response to the failures identified.
10.
Ms Emsley-Smith submitted that this Tribunal has not had the benefit of
hearing from Dr Radeke and therefore was not in a position to test his evidence or
hear directly from him about his insight and remediation. She submitted that his lack
of insight applies to all the failures identified. In respect of remediation, she referred
to the recent 2016 Continuing Professional Development (CPD) provided by Dr
Radeke and submitted that the Tribunal does not have evidence demonstrating that
he has reflected on the articles he has read, the extent of this reading and any plans
he has to return to any form of medical practice. Ms Emsley-Smith referred to Dr
Radeke’s witness statement in which he accepts that he is now deskilled. However,
she submitted that even if the Tribunal considered that he has demonstrated insight,
it has no sufficiently robust current information before it which it could rely on to say
that Dr Radeke would be safe to engage in unrestricted practice.
Doctor’s representatives submissions
11.
You told the Tribunal that Dr Radeke being deskilled is not a factor for this
Tribunal to take into account when determining the question of impairment. You
submitted that it must make a decision on impairment based upon the facts found
proved. You also told the Tribunal that Dr Radeke would not return to practice
without some period of re-skilling.
MPT: Dr RADEKE
4
Record of Determinations –
Medical Practitioners Tribunal
12.
You submitted that Dr Radeke wanted to apologise for his non-attendance at
these proceedings. You told the Tribunal that Dr Radeke has not worked since 2014
XXX. You referred the Tribunal to the transcripts and findings made by the GDC.
13.
You referred the Tribunal to the CPD Dr Radeke provided and submitted that
he undertook an enormous amount of personal development. You submitted that Dr
Radeke had demonstrated genuine remorse and referred to his witness statement in
which he submitted that he has reflected further since the GDC hearing. You
submitted that the CPD addressed all the deficiencies identified. You submitted that
since Dr Radeke’s registration is currently suspended he is limited as to what CPD he
can undertake and has therefore resorted to reading articles. The recent 2016 CPD
covers both dental and surgical matters. You finally submitted that taking all the
matters into account there is ample evidence to determine that Dr Radeke is not
currently impaired.
Tribunal’s decision
14.
The Tribunal took account of the findings made by the GDC, as varied on
appeal, as follows:
1. Between 20 and 23 August 2012 you provided treatment and advice to
Patient X.
2. During this period you failed to ensure that an adequate note was made in
relation to:
(a) Patient X’s medical history, including her intake of medication drugs
and alcohol;
(b) Patient X’s dental history;
(c) Patient X’s current drug therapy;
(d) Patient X’s presenting condition and complaints;
(e) any intra oral examination;
(f) a diagnosis for the teeth to be extracted and/or Patient X’s mouth
ulcers;
(g) justification for the treatment provided;
(h) the risks and benefits of the proposed treatment;
(i) the different options for the patient’s treatment;
(j) radiographic examination and/or blood test results.
3. On 23 August 2012 you:
(i) extracted five teeth; and
(ii) used laser treatment for the ablation of mouth ulcers.
4. Prior to providing the treatment described you:
MPT: Dr RADEKE
5
Record of Determinations –
Medical Practitioners Tribunal
(a) failed to take properly into account the contents of the patient’s
discharge summary from Croydon University Hospital;
(c) failed to contact directly other health professionals to ascertain the
appropriateness of the treatment you intended to provide;
(d) failed to ensure informed consent was obtained for the treatment you
proposed;
(e) wrongly categorised the patient as ASA 2;
(f) failed to obtain a diagnosis in respect of the patient’s ulcers prior to
undertaking invasive treatment.
5. In undertaking the procedures described on 23 August 2012 you:
(a) in respect of 3(i) failed to assess the patient appropriately;
(b) in respect of 3(i) failed to take adequately into account the patient’s
needs;
(c) in respect of 3(i) and (ii) failed to take adequately into account the
patient’s medical presentation;
(d) in respect of 3(i) and (ii) failed to provide palliative care while establishing
the patient’s medical status;
(e) in respect of 3(i) failed to take adequate account of the results of the
blood tests which revealed that the patient was gravely ill;
(f) in respect of 3(i) managed the patient in accordance with the
departmental Warfarin protocol which was inappropriate in the circumstances;
(g) in respect of 3(i) and (ii) provided treatment which was inappropriate in
the circumstances of the patient’s medical condition;
(h) in respect of 3(i) and (ii) provided treatment which was not in the
patient’s best interests;
(i) in respect of 3(i) and (ii) put the safety of the patient at risk.
Dr Radeke’s accounts of his treatment of Patient X
6. During the course of King’s College Hospital’s (“KCH”) investigation into the
circumstances of the death of Patient X you were interviewed by Staff Member A
on 17 October 2012.
7. During the course of that interview and thereafter when you returned the
documentation to him you explained to him that:
(a) your assessment before this operation upon this patient was that she was
ASA2 or ASA3;
(b) you then accepted with hindsight that she should not have been
categorised as ASA2 and should have been categorised as ASA3 or ASA4;
MPT: Dr RADEKE
6
Record of Determinations –
Medical Practitioners Tribunal
(c) it was your normal practice to fill in the safer surgical checklist before you
started the procedure and you saw no reason why you should not have done
so on that day;
(d) you had circled ASA2 and you had indicated on the form that the bleeding
risk was ‘no’.
8. On 21 June 2013 you gave evidence on oath before HM Coroner at an inquest
into the death of Patient X.
9. During the course of your evidence you stated that:
(a) your view prior to operating was that the patient was ASA3 or ASA4;
(b) the entry on the operation record that the patient was ASA2 was a
mistake which you did not correct;
(c) the entry showing that the patient was ASA2 was written by an assisting
nurse.
10. The Coroner in his determination relied upon your evidence and accepted that
the notation of ASA2 was made in error and that your real assessment of this
patient was that she was ASA3 and probably better classified as ASA4.
11. Your evidence to the Coroner on 21 June 2013 in respect of your assertions
set out at each of paragraphs 9(a) to 9(c) was:
(a) inaccurate in respect of charge 9(c)
12. [No Finding]:
Patient Y
13. On 19 July 2010 Patient Y consulted you having been referred in relation to a
cyst upon her mandible and you operated upon her on 24 August 2010.
14. In relation to the consultation on 19 July 2010 you:
(a) failed adequately to record your clinical examination;
(b) failed to record a differential diagnosis;
15. Prior to performing the operation on 24 August 2010 you:
(a) failed to contact directly other health professionals to ascertain the
appropriateness of the treatment you intended to provide;
(b) failed to obtain any previous diagnosis relevant to your treatment;
MPT: Dr RADEKE
7
Record of Determinations –
Medical Practitioners Tribunal
(c) failed properly to consider a differential diagnosis;
(e) failed to ensure that you had available to you a radiology report from a CT
scan performed on 22 July 2010.
16. Following the operation on 24 August 2010 you:
(a) noted that the cavity was empty and you submitted tissue for
histopathology;
(c) failed to follow up the results of the histopathology which you had
requested;
Patient Z
17. On 2 April 2012 Patient Z consulted you in relation to a lump on her upper lip.
18. In relation to your note of the consultation on 2 April 2012 you:
(a) failed to make an adequate record of the history of the lump;
(b) failed adequately to record a dental history;
(c) failed adequately to record your clinical examination;
(d) failed to record a differential diagnosis;
(e) failed to record the options for her care.
19. On 17 April 2012 you undertook a laser excision of moles and excision of a
tumour on her left lip.
20. Prior to performing this operation you:
(b) failed to take account of the likely aetiology and risk of a malignant
condition in the upper lip;
21. The operation you performed on 17 April 2012:
(a) was not in the best interests of the patient;
(b) put your patient at risk of harm.
22. Following the operation on 17 April 2012 you noted that a review should take
place in two months’ time and:
(a) in view of the risk of a malignant lesion your review interval was
inappropriate;
(b) you failed to follow up the results of the pathology which you had
requested.
MPT: Dr RADEKE
8
Record of Determinations –
Medical Practitioners Tribunal
15.
In reaching its own view on the question of impairment, the Tribunal
considered transcripts of the evidence presented to the GDC which underpinned the
findings set out above.
16.
The Tribunal has considered the GMP (November 2006 Edition), in
particular paragraphs 2(a), 2(c), 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 3(f), 3(i) and 36 as follows:
2 Good clinical care must include:
(a) adequately assessing the patient’s conditions, taking account of the
history (including the symptoms, and psychological and social factors), the
patient’s views, and where necessary examining the patient
…
(c) referring a patient to another practitioner, when this is
in the patient’s best interests.
3 In providing care you must:
(a) recognise and work within the limits of your competence
(b) prescribe drugs or treatment, including repeat prescriptions, only when
you have adequate knowledge of the patient’s health, and are satisfied that
the drugs or treatment serve the patient’s needs
(c) provide effective treatments based on the best available evidence
…
(f) keep clear, accurate and legible records, reporting the relevant clinical
findings, the decisions made, the information given to patients, and any drugs
prescribed or other investigation or treatment
…
(i) consult and take advice from colleagues, when appropriate
36 You must be satisfied that you have consent or other valid authority
before you undertake any examination or investigation, provide treatment or
involve patients in teaching or research. Usually this will involve providing
information to patients in a way they can understand, before asking for their
consent. You must follow the guidance in Seeking patients’ consent: The
ethical considerations, which includes advice on children and patients who are
not able to give consent.
MPT: Dr RADEKE
9
Record of Determinations –
Medical Practitioners Tribunal
17. The Tribunal noted the failings identified by the GDC and considered that its
primary responsibility at this stage of the hearing is to reach a conclusion that will
ensure the protection of patients and the maintenance of public confidence in the
medical profession. The Tribunal also considered the reasons cited by the court
when determining if the doctor’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.
18.
The failures identified by the GDC are as applicable to medical practice as
they are to dental practice. They included such matters as record keeping, obtaining
clinical information prior to treatment, consulting with colleagues, and obtaining
informed consent. The Tribunal considered that members of the public would be
concerned to learn that Dr Radeke’s registration with the GMC was unrestricted at a
time when he was subject to a suspension order from the GDC for these failures. It
considered that the maintenance of public confidence in the medical profession
required the Tribunal to make a finding that Dr Radeke’s fitness to practise with GMC
registration was impaired.
19.
The failures identified had also clearly posed a risk to patients at the time.
The Tribunal noted that as recently as June 2016 the PCC of the GDC had judged
that a finding of impairment was necessary for the protection of the public as well as
in the wider public interest. The Tribunal did not consider that it could or should
depart from that finding. It considered that the finding was justified on the basis of
the material available to the PCC. The Tribunal took into account the additional
remedial action taken by Dr Radeke since June 2016. He submitted a witness
statement and a file of CPD documents. These indicated that he had undertaken
extensive reading on a wide range of topics. The Tribunal was encouraged by his
actions. It accepted that his opportunities for CPD may have been limited by his
suspension from the GDC XXX. However, the result was that the Tribunal had only
limited information about developments since June 2016. The Tribunal could not be
confident that no risk to patients remained. The Tribunal concluded that a finding
that Dr Radeke’s fitness to practise under GMC registration was impaired was also
justified for the protection of the public.
20.
In all the circumstances the Tribunal has therefore concluded that Dr
Radeke’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of the determination by
the GDC.
Determination on Sanction - 11/01/2017
Mr Forde QC:
1.
Having determined that Dr Radeke’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason
of the determination by the GDC, the Tribunal has now considered what action, if
any, it should take with regard to his registration. The Tribunal has given careful
MPT: Dr RADEKE
10
Record of Determinations –
Medical Practitioners Tribunal
consideration to all the documents adduced, together with Ms Emsley-Smith’s
submissions on behalf of the GMC and those made by you on Dr Radeke’s behalf.
Submissions
2.
In making her submissions, Ms Emsley-Smith referred the Tribunal to the
relevant paragraphs within the Sanctions Guidance (SG) (July 2016), drawing the
Tribunal’s attention to the factors it should consider when determining which
sanction, if any, to impose. She reminded the Tribunal that Dr Radeke has been
subject to various investigations and submitted that it is clear from the evidence that
he has co-operated with the investigation carried out by the police. She also
submitted that he has engaged with both the GDC and GMC, albeit through you. Ms
Emsley-Smith submitted that Dr Radeke has made expressions of understanding and
insight and provided testimonials speaking to his positive characteristics. She
reminded the Tribunal that although there has been a lapse of time and expressions
of regret have been made, the circumstances of this case are aggravated by the
serious nature of the failings identified which she submitted related to the risks to
patients and the unfortunate consequence in respect of Patient X.
3.
Ms Emsley-Smith submitted that the appropriate sanction to impose in this
case is of suspension in order to protect the public and to maintain the reputation of
the medical profession.
4.
You also referred to the SG and reminded the Tribunal that Dr Radeke has
accepted his mistakes. You drew the Tribunal’s attention to the evidence before it, in
particular, concerning insight demonstrated by Dr Radeke.
5.
You reminded the Tribunal of Dr Radeke’s dual registration and submitted
that this is a case where the public is protected by the sanction imposed by the GDC
and for that reason this Tribunal could find a degree of exceptionality in order to
take no action. You told the Tribunal that on 2 June 2016, Dr Radeke was made
subject to a 12 month suspension imposed by the GDC and as he did not appeal,
that suspension commenced on 30 June 2016 and will expire on 30 June 2017. You
submitted that the failings occurred in a dental context and that nothing would be
added by the imposition of a sanction by this Tribunal. You submitted however that
if the Tribunal is minded to impose a sanction, suspension would be the only realistic
option.
Tribunal decision
6.
The decision as to the appropriate sanction, if any, is a matter for this
Tribunal exercising its own judgement. In reaching its decision, the Tribunal has
taken account of the SG and the statutory over-arching objective, which includes
protecting the health, safety and wellbeing of the public, maintaining public
confidence in the profession, and promoting and maintaining proper professional
MPT: Dr RADEKE
11
Record of Determinations –
Medical Practitioners Tribunal
standards of conduct for the members of the profession. The Tribunal recognised
that the purpose of a sanction is not to be punitive, although it may have a punitive
effect. Throughout its deliberations, the Tribunal has applied the principle of
proportionality, balancing Dr Radeke’s interests with the public interest.
No action
7.
The Tribunal first considered whether to conclude this case by taking no
action on Dr Radeke’s registration. The Tribunal has already determined that Dr
Radeke’s fitness to practise is impaired by the determination of the GDC and that the
failings identified by the GDC were equally applicable to medical practice. Although
this case is unusual, in that Dr Radeke is already subject to a sanction imposed by
the GDC, the Tribunal did not consider that this case fell into the exceptional
category where no sanction was required. Dr Radeke’s fitness to practise as a GMC
registrant has been found to be impaired and action is required in relation to his
GMC registration. The Tribunal determined that it would be wholly inappropriate to
conclude this case by taking no action as to do so would be neither proportionate
nor sufficient to protect the public and would not otherwise be in the public interest.
Conditions
8.
The Tribunal next considered whether to impose conditions on Dr Radeke’s
registration. It has borne in mind that any conditions imposed would need to be
appropriate, proportionate, workable, measurable and sufficient to address the
public interest.
9.
The Tribunal noted that Dr Radeke is suspended by the GDC and is not
currently working. The Tribunal has not had the benefit of hearing oral evidence
from Dr Radeke as to what he plans to do in the future and whether or not he
wishes to return to practice. In these circumstances, the Tribunal was not able to
formulate appropriate conditions. You did not submit that an order for conditions
would be workable in this case. The Tribunal has therefore concluded that it would
not be possible to impose conditions.
Suspension
10.
The Tribunal then considered whether a period of suspension would be
appropriate as a sanction to impose on Dr Radeke’s registration. It took account of
the paragraphs in the SG that deal with suspension, including 85, 86 and 91.
11.
Paragraphs 85 and 86 state:
“Suspension has a deterrent effect and can be used to send out a signal to
the doctor, the profession and public about what is regarded as behaviour
unbefitting a registered doctor. Suspension from the medical register also has
MPT: Dr RADEKE
12
Record of Determinations –
Medical Practitioners Tribunal
a punitive effect, in that it prevents the doctor from practising (and therefore
from earning a living as a doctor) during the suspension, although this is not
its intention.
Suspension will be an appropriate response to misconduct that is so serious
that action must be taken to protect members of the public and maintain
public confidence in the profession. A period of suspension will be
appropriate for conduct that is serious but falls short of being fundamentally
incompatible with continued registration (ie for which erasure is more likely to
be the appropriate sanction because the tribunal considers that the doctor
should not practise again either for public safety reasons or to protect the
reputation of the profession).”
12.
Additionally the Tribunal took account of paragraph 91 in particular subparagraphs (a), (b) and (f) which state that suspension may be appropriate when:

“A serious breach of Good medical practice, but where the doctor’s
misconduct is not fundamentally incompatible with their continued
registration, therefore complete removal from the medical register
would not be in the public interest. However, the breach is serious
enough that any sanction lower than a suspension would not be
sufficient to protect the public or maintain confidence in doctors.

In cases involving deficient performance where there is a risk to
patient safety if the doctor’s registration is not suspended and where
the doctor demonstrates potential for remediation or retraining.
…

No evidence of repetition of similar behaviour since incident”
13.
The findings made by the GDC did amount to serious breaches of GMP.
However, the Tribunal concluded that this breach was not fundamentally
incompatible with continued registration. In deciding this, the Tribunal took into
account the evidence before it, which included evidence demonstrating steps Dr
Radeke has taken to address the failings identified. In addition, there was nothing to
suggest that there has been any repetition of similar behaviour since the incidents
occurred. The Tribunal acknowledged that although harm did come to patients, Dr
Radeke, subsequently sought to minimise this risk by taking steps to address his
failings. The Tribunal has therefore concluded that although there remains some risk
of repetition, this risk is relatively low.
14.
In all the circumstances, the Tribunal has determined that a period of
suspension is the appropriate, sufficient and proportionate sanction. It will signal to
Dr Radeke, to the profession and to the public that the Tribunal regards the failings
identified by the GDC as serious and unacceptable.
MPT: Dr RADEKE
13
Record of Determinations –
Medical Practitioners Tribunal
15.
Having determined that suspension would be the proportionate, appropriate
and sufficient sanction, the Tribunal then considered the length of the order. It has
balanced the necessity in the public interest to mark the seriousness of the findings
made by the GDC with Dr Radeke’s own interests. When considering the duration of
Dr Radeke’s suspension, the Tribunal bore in mind the nature of the failings
identified and the sanction that has already been imposed by the GDC. The Tribunal
considered that Dr Radeke is making progress in addressing his failures and has
demonstrated some insight and remediation. It is aware that he is due to appear
before the GDC in early June 2017 for his review hearing. The Tribunal considered
that the period of suspension should correspond to the suspension already imposed
by the GDC so that both cases can be reviewed at about the same time. If the GDC
lifts the suspension at its review hearing, it could be unfair for Dr Radeke’s GMC
registration to remain suspended for a substantial period thereafter.
16.
The purpose of a sanction is to serve the public interest and to maintain
public confidence in the profession. The Tribunal has determined that this may be
achieved by suspension of Dr Radeke’s name from the Medical Register for a period
of five months. Allowing for the 28 day appeal period, this order will end shortly
after the end of the current GDC order. The Tribunal did consider whether erasure
would be the appropriate sanction and took account of the relevant paragraphs
within the SG. The Tribunal concluded that in all the circumstances it would be
unnecessary and indeed disproportionate to erase Dr Radeke’s name from the
Medical Register.
17.
A Tribunal will review Dr Radeke’s case at a review hearing to be held before the
end of the period of suspension. It will then consider whether any further action in
relation to Dr Radeke’s registration is required. Dr Radeke will be informed of the date
of that meeting, which he is encouraged to attend. The Tribunal reviewing his case will
be assisted by receiving:



Further reflection on the failings identified by the GDC
Evidence of any other steps taken by Dr Radeke of remediation
Information about the outcome of the GDC review hearing, which will be
essential to assist the Tribunal reviewing Dr Radeke’s case.
18.
It would be of assistance to the Review Tribunal if Dr Radeke was able to attend
to enable him to give his evidence in person.
19.
The effect of the foregoing direction is that, unless Dr Radeke exercises his
right of appeal, his registration will be subject to suspension 28 days from the date
on which written notice of this decision is deemed to have been served upon him.
MPT: Dr RADEKE
14
Record of Determinations –
Medical Practitioners Tribunal
Determination on Immediate Order - 11/01/2017
Mr Forde QC:
1.
Having determined that Dr Radeke’s registration be suspended for five
months, the Tribunal next considered in accordance with Section 38 of the Medical
Act 1983, as amended, whether to impose an immediate order on suspension his
registration.
2.
Ms Emsley-Smith made no submissions on behalf of the GMC.
3.
You also made no submissions on Dr Radeke’s behalf.
4.
The Tribunal has considered all the circumstances of this unusual case. It
noted that Dr Radeke has been subject to a sanction of suspension by the GDC for
the last six months. The Tribunal, having exercised the principle of proportionality,
has determined that it is not necessary to impose an immediate order of suspension.
5.
The substantive direction for suspension, as already announced, will take
effect 28 days from when notice is deemed to have been served upon Dr Radeke.
6.
That concludes this case.
Confirmed
Date 11 January 2017
MPT: Dr RADEKE
Mrs Joy Hamilton, Chair
15
MPT: Dr RADEKE
2
Record of Determinations –
Medical Practitioners Tribunal
MPT: Title SURNAME
1