Dr Valerie Murphy MPTS Tribunal: Decision on Impairment

After yet another afternoon of waiting, Karen, Ally and Ellis were at the GMC to hear the tribunal panel’s decision on impairment. They found Dr Valerie Murphy impaired. The tribunal will reconvene Monday 19 February 2018 for three days. There were two determinations, a public one (available to view here) and a private one (not available to us, likely to relate to issues of health or confidentiality).

As ever, all thoughts or comments very welcome below #JusticeforLB hive mind, do your worst.

 

6 responses to “Dr Valerie Murphy MPTS Tribunal: Decision on Impairment”

  1. Richard Julian says:

    So relieved that the Tribunal saw the true Dr Murphy .
    ‘the Tribunal has noted that there has been an absence of apology to Patient A’s mother and an absence of remorse for the consequences. It considers that the remorse displayed was limited to the consequences these proceedings have had upon her (Dr. Murphy).’
    An acknowledgment by the profession and tribunal of the ordeal this family have had to go through to get this decision is also long overdue. Is there any wonder families fail to complain or pursue their complaints if this is the treatment they can look forward to.

  2. John Lish (@LostTransport) says:

    Skimming through at present but note that paragraph 43 uses the term “tragic case”.

    Paragraph 48: the description “part and parcel of undertaking an adequate assessment” – VM fails on the lowest bar expected.

    Paragraph 50: VM fails to act on a legal requirement to arrange a Best Interests meeting.

    Paragraph 57: VM fails in basic management of a vulnerable patient

    Paragraph 58: VM fails to communicate adequately with colleagues

    Paragraph 59: VM fails to make adequate notes sufficient to provide clinical care

    Paragraph 60: Tribunal notes that there are multiple examples of VM failure re clinical care and inability to communicate effectively. A lack of a treatment plan is “very serious” in Tribunal’s view and VM “failed to protect and promote the health of [Connor]”

    Paragraph 64 (in full): The Tribunal is of the view that the extent and gravity of the above breaches of the fundamental principles of GMP together with Dr Murphy’s failure to comply with mandatory legal obligations to conduct a best interests meeting on two occasions are such that those parts of the allegation found proved cannot, when considered all together, be anything other than misconduct. It is satisfied that applying the test in Nandi fellow professionals would regard them to be deplorable. The Tribunal regards it to be sufficiently serious misconduct in the exercise of professional practice such that it can properly be described as misconduct going to fitness to practise.

    Considering that part of VM’s ‘defence’ at the tribunal was to muddy the waters and attempted to focus on this being a ‘tragic case’, the panel here have accepted the arguments made by the GMC representative that over the course of 107 days, there was considerable evidence that VM failed to provide adequate clinical care as defined under GMP. Not a tragic single error but a pattern of behaviour that was dangerous.

    Given that pretty damning baseline, it means the determination about impairment would have needed VM to prove remediation through significant awareness, remorse, learning and understanding to have avoided an impairment judgment. That didn’t happen but how far along did VM get?

    Paragraph 66: Enhancing knowledge of epilepsy – some remediation but not sufficient. Yellow Card scheme – potentially useful but only partial demonstration of remediation.

    Paragraph 67: The Tribunal’s view is that paragraph 66 is the only area where VM has shown remediation. VM hasn’t shown remediation in ‘taking responsibility’ and ‘team leadership’. Nor are they convinced VM has demonstrated any remediation re record keeping and using computers (a basic requirement for the NHS).

    Paragraph 68: In short VM has taken a few baby steps towards remediation but only in a partial manner. Wide ranging failures of VM handling “have not been remedied”.

    Paragraph 69: Would VM repeat these mistakes? Well she hasn’t shown insight into the seriousness of what occurred, she only produced her homework for the tribunal at the last moment, her reflective statements in 2014 and 2015 don’t really show much reflection, she continues to look for excuses, she won’t take full responsibility, she can’t apologise to Sara and her remorse is only about her own sorry arse.

    Given the above, I can’t envision VM being allowed to practice under supervision. The only question is whether they leave a door open for VM to come back if sufficient remediation did happen and could be evidenced. Given my opinion of VM character, that would also amount to her career experiencing sine die as being permanently disqualified.

  3. Amazing amount of tenacity it took to reach this point. I noticed the same quote as Richard Julian did in the comment above. Says it all really.

  4. Susi says:

    Appalling litany of failures by someone whose incompetence led to the death of a much loved son plus total lack of remorse and sense of accountability. No one should be under her care. Connor’s family entrusted his life into her hands and that of her colleagues. Unforgivably unacceptable practice shown by her.

  5. service user says:

    I am glad you got this result for LB.

    It scare me reading how LB was treaed and how his family has been treated trying to get justice.

    As a service user without family I know that if I die a preventable death there will be no one to get justice for me. I hope that through the publicity there has been of how LB and his family have been treated there will be far reaching changes so in future no one dies preventable death and if they do they get justice whoever they are.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *