Pauline Hill was treated at Chesterfield Royal Hospital by Dr Daniel Hay in 2003, well beyond the scope of the current investigation into her practice, which focuses on 2015 to 2018.
Dr Hay, who lives near Alfreton and has now given up his medical licence, was working as a specialist registrar for rotational obstetrics and gynecology in the ‘Mid Trent’ area when he cared for Ms Hill.
Ms Hill, a mum-of-four, told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) that she felt it was vital to tell her story given the number of women who allegedly suffered at the hands of Dr Hay.
That’s why she took the courage to do it.
Meet Chesterfield’s BFFs cast as ring girls for Fury v Whyte heavywe…
However, she told LDRS she felt a sense of ‘guilt’ about whether there was anything more she could have done at the time to raise red flags and ring doorbells. alarm about Dr. Hay.
Ms Hill complained about her treatment by him at the time to the former Healthcare Commission (which has now been merged into the Care and Quality Commission) and the General Medical Council (GMC).
However, in 2005 the commission claimed that many of Ms Hill’s claims were “unsubstantiated” and found “no issues” that contravened health regulations, and said she could take her claim to the GMC.
The GMC dismissed his request with “no further action” to take in 2005 and his request for review was quashed in 2007, saying it did not believe Dr Hay’s fitness to practice was “impaired to a degree warranting an action”.
Another request for reconsideration of his complaint was rejected by the GMC in 2021, saying it cannot reopen a reconsideration decision if it was made more than two years ago, except in “exceptional circumstances”. .
Ms Hill told the LDRS: “When I found out about the ongoing investigation, I felt really guilty. But all I can think is that if they (the GMC) had listened, it wouldn’t wouldn’t have happened.
“I feel guilty because I think about how, and if we had done more then, couldn’t I have done more?
“I was shocked but I was also devastated (to learn of the ongoing Hay investigation). All these ladies, this wouldn’t have happened if they (the GMCs) had done what they should have done there. at 20, they would not have suffered.
“We feel bad that we didn’t do enough to stop him, but what can you do when you feel like no one will listen to you?
“I fear there is a culture of hiding here. But it will be like opening a Pandora’s box.
“What I believe is that if it had to do with men and anything to do with their balls, something would have been done much sooner.
“I’m telling the truth and unless I do I’m not going to stop it (Hay).”
Ms Hill also claims that Dr Hay ‘did not work alone’ and that other people and authorities will have been and will be aware of his potential failings and will share some of the blame.
Ms Hill’s husband Malcolm told the LDRS: ‘If they (the GMC) had said he wasn’t fit to practice, all these women over the last 20 years wouldn’t have been harmed, and those organizations wouldn’t have to pay all that money in compensation too.
“It’s a nightmare for us to relive it. You put it in the back of your mind. But if the GMC had listened then, these women would not have suffered. They would have been spared.
Ms Hill was first referred to Dr Hay in early 2003 at Chesterfield Royal Hospital, due to endometriosis (a painful condition of the uterus).
She claims Dr Hay ‘insisted’ on her having a hysterectomy (removal of the uterus), but she is adamant she didn’t want it. She wanted a big family and planned to have another child.
Ms Hill said she had adhesions (scar tissue) on her bowel and bladder and was worried a hysterectomy could cause further problems.
She eventually consented to a laparoscopy (insertion of a tiny camera into the body) to investigate the issues that were causing her pain. But she claims that when she was prepped for surgery, she was told she was having a hysterectomy.
Ms. Hill left the hospital in a hurry with her husband. She claims a colleague of Dr Hay’s allegedly rearranged a laparoscopy for Ms Hill and insisted he perform it, not Dr Hay.
She consented to Dr Hay’s colleague performing the procedure, but claims that when she was taken to Chesterfield Royal’s operating theater it was Dr Hay who was performing the operation.
Following this laparoscopy, Ms Hill says she was in severe pain and continued to haemorrhage (bleed).
During a severe haemorrhage at home in late 2003, she passed out and collapsed and was moved into the bath by relatives where she continued to bleed ‘profusely’ as an ambulance was on the scene. point of being called.
It was arranged for Ms Hill to be taken to Chesterfield Royal Hospital by car instead, she claims.
Dr Hay reportedly claimed the bleeding was caused by overuse of prescribed medication, but Ms Hill claims she was told the prescribed medication provided by Dr Hay was far too intensive.
She says that after she was admitted to Chesterfield Royal, Dr Hay had Ms Hill transferred to the Chatsworth Suite, a non-NHS private ward within the hospital, where she claims she was described by staff as ‘seriously ill “.
Ms Hill claims a colleague of Dr Hay discharged her from hospital and arranged an operation at a hospital in Nottingham, instead of Chesterfield.
This colleague is said to have carried out corrective surgery to fix the work done by Dr Hay, but to this day Ms Hill says she is unsure what needed fixing and what was done – she just knows that neither Dr. Hay nor his colleague performed a hysterectomy.
Ms Hill said: ‘Under his care (of Dr Hay) my condition deteriorated rapidly and after his care I gradually improved.’
She said the care provided by Dr Hay “left her at death’s door” for two years, due to the impact of the operation he performed and the medication he prescribed.
She believes the drugs left her with osteoporosis – a bone-weakening condition – which saw her suffer numerous stress fractures, including a fractured ankle. This left her unable to maintain a beloved hobby of running miles each day.
A 2007 GMC investigative report, viewed by the LDRS, states: “The records show that Dr. Hay very clearly felt that a hysterectomy would be required and that the patient was not happy with it.”
The 2005 Health Care Commission report states: “There are concerns that Dr Hay explained Ms Hill’s clinical needs in such a way that it led Ms Hill to believe that she was seriously ill and that she needed a hysterectomy urgently, which led to Ms Hill feeling forced to make a choice.
He refers to the fact that the relationship between Dr Hay and Ms Hill had ‘collapsed’.
A GMC spokesperson said, “Patient safety is at the heart of everything we do. When concerns are raised about a doctor and there are a number of similar allegations involving the same doctor, we review each of the concerns raised.
“While we are unable to comment on specific cases or complaints unless they are the subject of a hearing in court, we are investigating all concerns raised with us and fully reviewing all evidence. relevant before making a decision on the complaint.
“Not all complaints meet the threshold for an investigation, and not all investigations meet the test for referral to a court hearing, usually because there is no ongoing risk to patients.
“We always provide full reasons for our decisions not to pursue a complaint, but recognize that this can be very frustrating for patients and their families.”
A spokesperson for University Hospitals Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust (UHDB) referred to Chesterfield Royal Hospital (CRH)l trust
A spokesperson for the HRC said it was aware of the investigation into Dr Hay that was currently taking place and was awaiting the full report to understand its full implications.
The investigation into Dr Hay’s work is being carried out by the UHDB, NHS England and the GMC. Derbyshire Police are also ‘working closely’ with the investigation as part of Operation Land Guard, it is understood, although there is currently no criminal investigation.
It centers on concerns about the practice of Dr Hay while he was a specialist in obstetrics and gynecology based at the Royal Derby Hospital, including the care provided at Ripley Community Hospital.
The investigation so far includes 383 women identified as former patients, which may be concerning.
An interim report released by the trust last May found there are ‘major concerns’ that 50 women have suffered harm and ‘some concern’ that a further 69 women have suffered harm as a result of his care.
The Medical Defense Union (MDU), which represents Mr Hay, has been asked for comment.
In July last year, MDU released the following statement regarding Dr Hay. He has not commented on investigations into his work since.
Dr Hay, speaking through the MDU, said: ‘I apologize to the women affected by the NHS investigation. I am cooperating with the investigation, however, due to my ongoing mental health issues, I ask that you please respect my privacy at this time.