Aoife Johnston, a 16-year-old from Co Clare, tragically passed away on December 19th, 2022, at University Hospital Limerick (UHL) due to meningitis, after she was without antibiotics for upwards of 13 hours. Several investigations were carried out following her death, with a prominent one being led by ex-chief justice Frank Clarke.
Mr Clarke revealed in his report, which was made public last month, that the teenager’s death was likely avoidable. He attributed her death to a range of factors, including crowding and insufficiency at the midwest hospital, as well as irregular protocols within the medical centre.
In response to the report’s release, Bernard Gloster, the CEO of the HSE, revealed that six staff members were undergoing disciplinary proceedings, with four currently on administrative leave. One of those suspended is consultant orthopaedic surgeon Brian Lenehan, who also serves as the UL Hospitals Group’s primary medical director.
His suspension has led to a legal dispute in the High Court, where Prof Lenehan is contesting his administrative leave ahead of the disciplinary hearing. He has provided an affidavit stating that Mr Gloster issued him a letter on July 24th detailing 22 concerns arising from his fulfilment of his responsibilities.
Court documents submitted by Prof Lenehan show that Mr Gloster highlighted that the issues put forward potentially pose an immediate and significant danger to patients and staff, leading him to contemplate implementing security measures while a probe into Prof Lenehan’s conduct is underway.
Prof Lenehan’s affidavit indicates that all but one of these concerns pertained to the weekend Ms Johnston was admitted to the hospital. However, he maintains that no specific action or lack thereof on his part was explicitly mentioned in relation to these concerns.
In a communication with Prof Lenehan on August 29th, Mr Gloster verified the anticipated suspension pertained only to his position as the primary clinical director and had no bearing on his consultancy role. Thereafter, a meeting took place on September 3rd between Prof Lenehan and Mr Gloster, where they were joined by their legal advisors. During this meeting, Prof Lenehan gave a letter to the senior executive, highlighting 22 unspecified concerns he believed were baselessly associated with him and that he had not been criticised in any official reports.
A week later, on September 11th, Mr Gloster engaged in a discussion with Dr Joseph Devlin, a consultant rheumatologist and deputy chair of UHL’s medical board, regarding the proposed actions against Prof Lenehan. In a legal statement, Mr Devlin shared the details of his conversation with Mr Gloster, in which the executive emphasised the importance of fostering a fair environment within the HSE, where staff wouldn’t be held responsible for any system breakdowns beyond their control.
Mr Devlin responded by expressing his full backing for disciplinary action against those not meeting care standards, yet he saw no reason to suspect Prof Lenehan of such shortcomings. He restated this in the court documents, stating he found no misconduct accusations against Prof Lenehan within the shared reports, nor did he find any actions or lack thereof that would reasonably suggest he posed a significant or immediate threat.
Subsequently, on September 16th, Mr Gloster notified Prof Lenehan that he would be initiating a disciplinary investigation into suspected serious misconduct and would be suspending him from his directorial role. Mr Gloster expressed in his letter, as cited in Prof Lenehan’s legal statement, that if Prof Lenehan continued in his position as chief clinical director, it could pose a significant and immediate risk to patients under UHL’s care and its A&E department.
The day after Prof Lenehan was placed on administrative leave, his legal team contested this action with the HSE’s solicitors, believing this measure violated his contract and legal rights. They asked for it to be overturned. Yet, on 20th September, Mr Gloster upheld his initial decision to put Prof Lenehan on administrative leave.
A High Court order was sought by Prof Lenehan last week, requesting his reinstatement while a disciplinary investigation is conducted. However, the court postponed the case to give the HSE time to provide a response. He affirmed in his affidavit that labeling him a risk to patients was a personal affront and could harm his professional and clinical standing.
Prof Lenehan pledged not to obstruct or stall the proposed investigation into his actions, and committed to cooperate fully. However, he expressed concern that the imposed leave of absence, described as ‘serious and immediate’ by his employer, could irreparably harm his reputation, which he had painstakingly built over 25 years in the medical profession.