The suspension of a long-serving consultant for allegedly keeping patients in hospital too long may be invalid, according to a lawyer.
The barrister who chaired the Hospital Consultants Common Contract negotiations has confirmed in a letter to the Irish Hospital Consultants Association that the clause under which Dr Colman Muldoon was suspended was for use only in circumstances of grave risk to patients or staff.
Mr Mark Connaughton's recollection suggests the North Eastern Health Board may have misused the "Buckley contract" to suspend the Drogheda consultant.
According to Clause 3 Appendix 4 of the contract, the use of suspension while an investigation is ongoing should be used only where there is "an immediate and serious risk to the safety, health or welfare of patients or staff".
Mr Connaughton states: "In the ordinary course, therefore, it was not envisaged that it would be necessary for a consultant to be removed from his position while an investigation was ongoing, save in the circumstances outlined in Clause 3."
The "safety, health and welfare of patients and staff" is generally accepted to cover a situation where a consultant physically threatens staff or patients. No such allegations have been made against Dr Muldoon. The central issue in the dispute between the consultant and his employers is the length of time his patients stay in hospital.
There is now considerable concern among consultants that the use of the suspension clause in this manner will set a dangerous precedent. Mr Finbarr Fitzpatrick, secretary general of the IHCA, told The Irish Times that "if the misuse of paragraph 3 in the Buckley deal was to become common, then discharging patients would be governed not by a consultant's judgment but by pressure for beds from emergency admissions".
Both sides in the dispute have agreed to an independent review of Dr Muldoon's practice by the Royal College of Physicians. They are expected to return to the High Court in April, when this review and Mr Connaughton's opinion on Clause 3 will be the subject of further legal debate.