Women who claim they were “traumatized” by a former NHS gynecologist have stated that they feel there is no resolution following a report that highlighted significant issues in his treatment.

Daniel Hay performed surgeries on numerous women at the University Hospitals of Derby and Burton (UHDB) NHS Foundation Trust prior to his retirement in 2020.

On Wednesday, a long-awaited report, which examined his conduct between 2015 and 2018, was initiated following concerns raised by his peers, revealing that Mr. Hay’s reckless methods and cutbacks led to women experiencing significant physical damage.

In reply, UHDB expressed “deep regret” to the women who were provided care “under the level of expectation.”

The report, which involved a panel reaching out to 325 women who received treatment from Mr. Hay, found that several experienced moderate to severe physical injuries, with some stating that they felt having major treatment was their “only choice.”

This involved patients who had received hysterectomies — a surgical operation that removes the uterus.

Several women claimed that Mr. Hay’s actions had a negative impact on their mental well-being, influencing their personal relationships and professional lives.

Hannah Green, 35, stated to bootstrap4u.com that she was diagnosed with complex post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) following treatment by Mr. Hay.

I no longer experience any emotions. My daughter has noticed this in me.

“The sole genuine feeling I experience now is frustration,” she stated.

Ms. Green experienced symptoms of endometriosis, which went undiagnosed at the time, and was referred to Mr. Hay in 2016.

She mentioned that bootstrap4u.com Mr Hay was known as “the best.”

During a 20-minute meeting with Mr. Hay, she mentioned that he did not maintain eye contact with her, did not perform any physical examination, and instead spoke into a voice recorder instead of addressing her directly.

Ms. Green had a laparoscopy, which is a procedure where a camera is inserted into the abdomen or pelvis to diagnose or address medical issues, along with a hysteroscopy, a test that examines the inside of the uterus using a narrow tube equipped with a tiny camera.

After following the procedures, Ms. Green mentioned that she was sent home without receiving any explanations, as Mr. Hay had already left for the day.

“I lay in bed bleeding and waited for three weeks, after which Mr. Hay informed me that he found nothing noteworthy,” she stated.

Ms. Green stated that she filed a complaint with the trust at that time, following her daily attempts to contact them for explanations over a period of three weeks.

‘Insult to injury’

She was sent back to Mr. Hay in 2017 and had a second laparoscopy.

Ms. Green mentioned that the physician who provided the referral informed her that Mr. Hay had been her mentor, and she referred to him as a “rock star.”

After following that process, Ms. Green stated she was, once more, not visible to Mr. Hay or any member of his team, and thus departed without receiving any explanations regarding what had occurred.

She eventually found out that, during the second laparoscopy, a tissue sample was collected from her cervix, which she had not given permission for.

“I inquired with the physician who examined my grievance whether there was an alternative way to express what had occurred to me,” Ms. Green stated.

I asked, ‘Should I call the police, or are you going to?’

Mr. Hay, in his 60s and hailing from Alfreton in Derbyshire, is currently under investigation by Derbyshire Police and wasinterviewed with caution earlier this year.

Ms. Green stated that she was informed by the UHDB that her case resulted in “no harm” being done to her. She disagrees with this assertion.

It wasn’t until 2020 that Ms. Green received a diagnosis ofendometriosis, and she said she had not yet been referred to a specialist or received any treatment.

Last week, Ms. Green was informed by the trust that the report on Mr. Hay’s care would be released.

She mentioned that the letter indicated the trust aimed to provide a type of “closure” for the patients, while noting that the comment “added insult to injury.”

We have been waiting for three years for this.

“I don’t grasp how they believe this is a sufficient reply,” she stated.

Melissa Newbold, who lives in Derby, stated she was “traumatised” following a complete hysterectomy that was recommended by Mr. Hay.

A 40-year-old woman, who had experienced severe menstrual pain and heavy bleeding before the procedure, mentioned she opted to get an intrauterine device inserted after giving birth to her youngest child.

She mentioned that Mr. Hay became “upset” while trying to insert the coil in 2013, which required placing it through her cervix into her uterus.

Although she was in “pain” and a nurse told him to stop, he kept going with the procedure, Mrs. Newbold stated.

“The third time the nurse directly yelled at him and said ‘you need to stop,’ he stormed off in a fit,” she said to bootstrap4u.com.

After the unsuccessful procedure, she mentioned that she contacted Mr. Hay, who recommended she undergo a womb ablation — a treatment that eliminates the lining of the uterus to prevent heavy menstrual bleeding.

The procedure to remove the womb was successful, but Mrs. Newbold kept experiencing pain. Upon returning to Mr. Hay, she was recommended to undergo a complete hysterectomy.

She mentioned that Mr. Hay informed her she was at a high risk for cancer and assured her she would “feel great” after the procedure.

Mrs. Newbold, who did not intend to have any more children, had a hysterectomy.

‘God complex’

After the operation, she mentioned that she was not provided with hormone replacement therapy (HRT), which she later learned she should have received right after the procedure.

Alternatively, she started experiencing what she referred to as “intense” menopause symptoms, such as headaches, hair loss, hot flashes, and emotional fluctuations.

“They left me to deal with it on my own, and honestly, I thought I was losing my mind,” she said.

A physician she contacted, following legal action against UHDB, which is still in progress, informed Mrs. Newbold that she should have been given the option to have the coil inserted under a general anesthetic.

She informed bootstrap4u.com that she would never have consented to the hysterectomy if she had been aware of another alternative.

Regarding Mr. Hay, she stated, “He was quite rude to me, so I never felt comfortable asking him anything – he made you doubt your own thoughts.”

He believes he’s divine, that’s my opinion.

She said: “I’m upset with Mr. Hay, but I feel more furious towards the trust.”

The trust should prioritize patients, but it appears they are safeguarding the staff instead.

I will continue to experience this pain until I reach my 50s or 60s, and there will never be an end to it.

Karen Reynolds, a representative from the Derby office of the law firm Freeths—which is assisting several women in a collective lawsuit against the trust—stated that it was “disheartening” that it took three years for the report to reach the patients.

It is evident that there were chances to address the challenges Mr. Hay was clearly facing when it came to making decisions regarding surgery and patient care.

“There were murmurs in the hallways, management should and could have been aware and took no action,” she stated.

The issue I’m facing once more is that lessons are not being learned.

I believe the NHS should thoroughly examine itself. There are outstanding employees within the NHS who perform well every day, but there are also those who do not, and it appears they continue without any oversight or accountability.

In a statement, Dr. Gis Robinson, the executive chief medical officer at the NHS trust, said: “We wish to emphasize our full apologies to the women who were treated by Mr. Hay in a manner that fell well below the expected standards.”

We acknowledge that our first communication and method of addressing the review were not as kind or encouraging as they ought to have been, and we sincerely apologize for that.

After releasing the report, we implemented significant modifications, including more transparent consent processes and stronger clinical supervision to detect any care-related problems sooner, as well as better follow-up evaluations for women.

We will keep a close watch and assess these to make sure they are working well and are completely incorporated, and apply our knowledge to help and guide the next part of the review.

The trust has encouraged anyone seeking reassurance to reach out to its Patient Advice and Support Service (PALS).

Follow bootstrap4u.comDerby onFacebook, on X, or on Instagram. Submit your story concepts toeastmidsnews@bootstrap4u.com.co.uk or via WhatsApp on 0808 100 2210.

More on this story

• Major shortcomings identified following a surgeon’s harm to a woman
• Former gynecologist is being questioned by authorities
• Police are examining 42 cases related to a former gynaecologist.

The post No Closure for Women Harmed by Surgeon appeared first on FondTimes.