Doctor at Peterborough City Hospital who made medical errors could be struck off

A decision will be made early next month on the fate of Dr Yordan Raev after the incidents in 2018.

The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service has previously determined that Dr Raev touched the breast and upper buttock/lower back of the daughter of a severely ill patient, although it concluded that this was “to indicate organ location, not for sexual motivation”.

It also ruled that he failed to act on the potential diagnosis of ischaemic bowel disease and failed to give the patient a personalised end of life care plan after her condition deteriorated.

During his testimony, Dr Raev said he did not recall the patient or recognise her daughter and relied on his medical notes to answer questions.

He also stated that he did not realise the patient needed end of life care which explained why he recommended blood and stool tests and a CT scan which the tribunal ruled were unnecessary for a terminally ill person.

Dr Raev came to the UK in 2008 after seven years working as a doctor in Bulgaria and held a fixed term locum post at the city hospital from February 2018 where he worked on the Adult Respiratory Ward.

The tribunal noted in its ruling that he gave “clear, believable and credible responses to the questions directed at him whilst under oath”.

And while it accepted claims from the patient’s daughter that he had ushered her into a supplies store room to discuss her mother’s condition, it did not deem this to be inappropriate.

The hearing will reconvene next week when it will decide whether Dr Raev fitness to practise is currently impaired.

A spokesperson for North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust, which runs Peterborough City Hospital, said: “The trust isn’t in a position to comment until a decision has been made at the tribunal.”

The findings

The tribunal, in its written summary of the hearing, found the patient’s daughter (Miss A) to be a “straightforward, honest and credible witness who did not seek to embellish her account”.

It added: “She was not motivated by anything other than a desire to ensure that Dr Raev did not repeat his actions.”

Dr Raev gave a statement which, according to the tribunal, claimed that “the ward was so busy at times that he didn’t even have time to go to the toilet”.

As a result, the tribunal accepted that every interaction with a patient’s relative may not have been noted.

Explaining why it concluded that Dr Raev had touched the daughter’s breast and buttock/lower back, but that it was not sexually motivated, the written ruling stated that it was “more likely than not that Dr Raev and Miss A had discussed Patient B’s condition and during this discussion Dr Raev had sought to indicate where the lungs and kidneys were by briefly making contact with his hand on Miss A’s breast and upper buttock.

“The tribunal was of the view that this was an appropriate discussion about the health of Miss A’s mother which included references to her affected organs, namely her lungs and kidneys, and their location in the body.”

On the treatment of Miss A’s mother (Patient B), the tribunal stated that Dr Raev felt her condition was improving as “her abdomen was not tender and no red flags had been raised. This resulted in him making a diagnosis which may not have been correct. Dr Raev emphasised that he was in any case following the plan formed at the weekend by other clinicians”.

However, the tribunal accepted evidence from expert witness Dr Peter Turkington, respiratory and general physician at Salford Royal Hospital, on behalf of the General Medical Council, that Dr Raev “should have recognised the signs of (Patient B’s) deterioration and that she was not going to get better and should have amended his treatment plan accordingly, including consideration of end of life care planning”.

It also accepted that Dr Raev “did not act on the potential diagnosis of ischaemic bowel disease made by the surgical team” and recommended blood tests, a “stool culture” and a CT scan which were not needed.

The tribunal also refused Dr Raev’s application that Miss A’s identification of him should be deemed inadmissible.