A review into treatment provided by a children’s surgeon at Great Ormond Street Hospital has raised questions over whether he was suitably qualified and trained to lead the treatment of patients – following concerns that ‘serious harm’ was caused to his patients.
Hudgell Solicitors is representing the families of a number of children treated by surgeon Mr Yaser Jabbar over a number of years at the renowned London hospital.
And medical negligence claims solicitor Caroline Murgatroyd, who is leading the firm’s work on the case, says ‘shocking details’ have been revealed following initial investigations by the Royal College of Surgeons (RCS).
Earlier this year, the hospital confirmed an investigation had been launched after concerns were raised by both family members and staff.
This led to the initial RCS investigation, in which concerns were raised around the practice of the surgeon – concerns which Great Ormond Street Hospital said were being taken ‘incredibly seriously.’
Arrange a call back
‘A very worrying picture’
Miss Murgatroyd, who is now instructed by a number of families, says information revealed to her clients ‘paints a very worrying picture’, and ‘indicates there may have been serious failures in care to many patients, over a number of years’. She said:
Some of our clients have been contacted with details of initial findings of the Royal College of Surgeons’ reviews of their medical records, and they paint a very worrying picture of the treatment provided to children by Mr Jabbar.
They outline unacceptable assessments, examinations, clinical decision-making, and treatments of patients, poor communication with families with regards to seeking their consent for treatments and procedures, as well as failures to make it clear what kind of complications children could face after undergoing surgery.
There are also references to children being subjected to surgeries which the RCS review panel could see no justification for, with children undergoing procedures which brought them no clear benefit.
The findings so far have been shocking to read and have been very upsetting for our clients.
In one particular case a child underwent an amputation after having been put through a series of procedures. In this case the review panel found the amputation could possibly have been avoided with a different route of treatment.
Children have suffered leg length discrepancies following inappropriate and unnecessary surgeries which will require further and prolonged treatment, and nerve injuries causing ongoing pain.
There is also a lack of documentation over the decision-making process, or about discussing cases with consultant colleagues or the families of children themselves.
The initial findings we have seen indicates there may have been serious failures in care to many patients, over a number of years, and certainly at this stage, from the cases we have seen details on, it appears the hospital may be facing many claims for compensation.
Concerns over treatment of babies to teens
Miss Murgatroyd says Hudgell Solicitors have been instructed by families of children aged from just four-months-old to their teens when treated by Mr Jabbar, between February 2018 and May 2022.
The father of one child represented by the firm, who was six-years-old when they underwent a procedure in July 2021, said he raised concerns which were ‘completely dismissed’ by Mr Jabbar. He said:
In all of our meetings prior to my child’s surgery we were told a certain type of frame would be used to help rotation and lengthening, but when the procedure was done a completely different frame was used. We were never told why, but it seemed strange.
After a couple of days the frame became loose and my child was in a lot of pain. You could feel the bone in their leg, which felt out of position, like it wasn’t lined up and was protruding the wrong way. We feared something was wrong but when we raised it with Mr Jabbar he was very dismissive and said it was fine.
I did my own research as I was worried about the frame, so I contacted other specialist surgeons, in this country and the United States, who said another type of frame should have been used.
The hospital repeatedly denied this. At the same time we spoke with some other parents in the hospital and they said their child also had a different frame to what they’d been told would be used. It seemed odd.
We tried to raise our concerns repeatedly through the official complaints procedure, and I copied the clinical director into many emails, but heard nothing back. When they did an initial investigation it just seemed that everything was being brushed under the carpet and that was very upsetting.
It was only at a later stage, when our child was in terrible pain, that we saw another doctor and the hospital admitted that the wrong frame had been used.
Revision surgery was then needed and our child is still undergoing treatment now, but thankfully we now have a new surgeon, at the same hospital, who has been amazing.
I don’t think Mr Jabbar was ever questioned by others at the hospital about what he was doing. He was introduced to us as ‘the frame guy’. I think that says it all.
As part of the recent RCS review into this particular case, the panel found the initial surgery to be ‘incorrect and unsuitable’, as the issue was too complex to resolve in a single procedure.
The panel added that Mr Jabbar was adamant that revision surgery was not required, which it said ‘demonstrated a lack of understanding of the principles of deformity correction surgery, in addition to a lack of insight’.
It also states that ‘the patient’s family had to go to great lengths to communicate their dissatisfaction regarding the care of their child and to ensure their concerns were heard.
Independent experts instructed as ‘significant compensation’ sought
Miss Murgatroyd says Hudgell Solicitors are instructing independent medical experts to assess the cases of all who have instructed them, as they look to pursue ‘significant compensation claims’ on behalf of children affected.
She says her clients have been told that the cases of all Mr Jabbar’s patients are now being reviewed by three independent experts from other paediatric hospitals in the UK, with no date set for the final findings to be revealed, and is now urging more families with concerns to come forward.
One of the reports I have seen states that, as the RCS panel could not understand most of the decision-making in the case, they assumed inadequate experience and training, and questioned Mr Jabbar’s understanding of the management and use of particular treatments,” she said
I think initially people may have been reluctant to seek legal help until the full investigation, which is ongoing, is completed. However, I’d encourage people to contact us if their children were under the care of this surgeon at Great Ormond Street Hospital, especially if they have concerns over treatments, surgeries, and a lack of consultation and understanding of what was being done.