Doctor who left swab inside patient after surgery at Milton Keynes hospital is allowed to return to work

He's learned his lesson, a medical tribunal decided
Watch more of our videos on Shots! 
and live on Freeview channel 276
Visit Shots! now

A doctor who left a swab inside a female patient during an obstetrics operation has been allowed to return to work by a misconduct tribunal..

Dr Maher Mohammad was suspended for two months after the incident, but now ahearing at the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service in Manchester has decided he has "learned his lesson" and can practice again.

The tribunal reports detail how the locum doctor performed an obstetric tear repair on a woman at a hospital in Milton Keynes but left a medical swab inside her.

Dr Maher Mohammad was a locum doctor at Milton Keynes hospitalDr Maher Mohammad was a locum doctor at Milton Keynes hospital
Dr Maher Mohammad was a locum doctor at Milton Keynes hospital

When the swabs were counted he failed to inform his seniors or examine the patient.

"Approximately five hours after the procedure, Dr Mohammad examined Patient A without obtaining informed consent, in that he did not inform Patient A of the nature and purpose of the examination. Nor did he inform Patient A at (or around) the time of the examination that he had located a missing swab in her vagina," states the report.

It was only five hours later that he returned to the patient, examined her without informed consent and retrieved the missing swab. No apology was given to the patient by the doctor until he was told to do so. He again delayed providing a statement about the incident until three months later.

In June the tribunal ruled this behaviour amounted to misconduct and a two-month suspension was “necessary, appropriate and proportionate”.

Now a review has been carried out by the tribunal and it has been agreed to lift the suspension.

During the review, the doctor was given a chance to show he had reflected on his actions.

He submitted that that he knew the gravity of the incident and that it should not have happened. He said he had mitigating personal circumstances whereby he had to travel abroad. If it was not for this, he would not have left the matters as they had been left.

He also showed documentation proving he had attended several courses and submitted that he had had “learnt his lesson and apologised.