Why Hay reviews have been published now

The full story about why the reports into former Derby doctor Daniel Hay are now being published is in dispute. On Wednesday 1st October, the University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust published two reviews into Mr Hay and its own governance overseeing his practices – three years after they were completed.

The reports highlight years of inadequate practices, including insufficient consent, which led to harm to dozens of women, including unwanted hysterectomies.

Hospital officials have said the reports have been withheld for three years in order to avoid prejudicing an ongoing criminal investigation into Mr Hay which launched in September 2022.

They said they made the decision to publish the reports now following agreement with Derbyshire police.

A spokesperson said: “While the criminal investigation remains ongoing the trust has sought further legal advice and, with agreement of Derbyshire Constabulary detectives that the potential for prejudice has reduced, that the report can now be made public.”

However, an email from detective Claudia Musson, the person in charge of the police investigation into Mr Hay – dubbed Operation Landguard – seen by the Local Democracy Reporting Service, conflicts with that view.

It says: “The publication of the reports has been solely the decision of the trust, after receiving their own legal advice, from their legal team. 

“This was after they received repeated requests for the reports to be made public.

“Although we, the police, were consulted about their decision, we did not agree to the publication.

“Our position is still the same in that we would prefer the reports were not published.”

It added that the change in the reviews being withheld was linked to “the trust following advice from their own legal team, after facing legal challenges”.

Detective Musson said: “The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and police had already given their views on this position which remain the same.

“Any impact this has on the future case will be managed by the police and the CPS.

“It is not unusual for issues such as this to arise in criminal prosecutions and I am more than confident that if any issues do arise in the future we will be able to manage this, and minimise any effects.”

The legal challenge referenced by detective Musson was brought by Derby-based law firm Freeths. Freeths had been on the brink of taking the hospital trust to the High Court over withholding the Hay reviews.

It says it had not been pushing for public publication of the reviews but to gain access to them so as to better support its clients, who include many patients affected by Mr Hay.

Karen Reynolds, a clinical negligence lawyer at Freeths, based in Derby, said: “It is disappointing that it has taken three years and a court application by ourselves to ensure that the patients who have been reviewed can see the reports. 

“To be clear we never asked for publication and offered the trust lots of options to just disclose the reports to our clients. 

“The patients are the last people who would want to compromise any police investigation.

“The reports criticise the way the original review was communicated to patients causing them trauma. 

“The trust have not learnt from this. Our clients have received calls from the trust in the last couple of weeks advising them of publication and reassuring them that the review found that they had suffered no harm.

“Some of those clients have had admissions and compensation so they are re-traumatised.

“Having felt validated, they have now been retraumatized by the trust again.

“The main issue is that there was clear knowledge within the trust about concerns about Mr Hay’s practice and this was not dealt with by management. Multiple opportunities to avoid patient harm were missed.

“Both the review into Mr Hay’s practice and recent maternity reviews demonstrate that the trust is still not ensuring that staff are up to date on the requirements to properly consent patients. I do wonder when they will implement the training for this.

“As far as I am aware the review into Mr Hay’s care between 2012 and 2015 has not commenced. There is no point doing reviews if lessons are not learnt.”

The reviews which have now been published recommended the deep-dives are expanded to 2012 and to focus on major and intermediate gynaecology surgery cases.

A spokesperson for the trust confirmed a “phase 2” expansion of the review looking at patients “before 2015” has been approved and will start “in the autumn”, and patients who are affected will be contacted in due course, with no current information on how far back this will assess.

When asked about the police’s unchanged position on the release of the reports, a hospital spokesperson reiterated its claim that they had reached an agreement with the police.

Meanwhile, a police spokesperson said: “The publishing of the reports has been subject to legal advice taken by the trust in which includes the impact on any potential future criminal proceedings.

“Officers have been sighted on that advice and re-assured that the publication of the report is unlikely to impact on any potential future legal proceedings.

“The police and CPS are equipped to deal with any disclosure issues that may arise from publication.

“While the decision was a matter for UHDB, not the force, officers understood the position that the hospital was taking due to the legal advice that had been given to the trust and had the relevant re-assurances relating to any potential impact on future legal proceedings.

“Officers agreed that the potential for impact on future legal proceedings has reduced from the start of the investigation.

“Any investigation seeks to minimise to the greatest possible extent any potentially prejudicial material, however, officers also understand that as facts change those risks may reduce as they have in this case.

“This remains a complex and ongoing investigation, and we will continue to liaise with those involved as the enquiries move forward.”