THE board of Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda acted at all times with the "utmost integrity and good faith" when dealing with allegations of abuse against one of its consultants, the hospital's chief executive officer, Mr Basil Cronin, said yesterday.
At a press conference to publish the report by the independent review group Mr Cronin said the board had been "effectively travelling in unchartered waters".
The board expressed its "deepest regret for any unintentional distress which they may have caused since the allegations were made known to them".
In its submission to the review group, the board said that in effect it could not prevent the return of the consultant to the hospital as there were no legal restraints available to prevent it.
At the end of March, 1995, the North Eastern Health Board passed a complaint to the hospital that a doctor had sexually abused a man in 1975 when he was a teenager. The consultant was on leave at the time. When he returned, the CEO met him and outlined the allegations. He agreed to absent himself from his duties.
In April he said he wished to take leave. The disciplinary and complaints procedures under the consultants' common contract were invoked by the board. The consultant denied the allegations.
In a letter to Mr Eugene Quigley, the chairman of the hospital, the consultant said he intended to return to work on August 8th in a limited capacity to advise and assist locum general surgeons.
Despite the lateness of the complaint, the chairman had a discretion as to whether he would investigate the matter.
According 10 the report, the chairman decided it would not be reasonable to investigate considering the lapse of time.
The return of the consultant in any capacity was "not acceptable" to the North Eastern Health Board, the report said.
"It would also appear that the two authorities took different positions on the capacity of the chairman of the hospital management board to go outside the remit of the consultants' common contract."
On August 8th the consultant returned to the hospital. He remained there until August 21st, when the hospital management asked him to take immediate leave of absence until September 4th. On October 13th the consultant retired.
The hospital had to be "mindful" of its obligations to many different parties, including its patients, complainants, the consultant, its staff and the general public, the board said.
"However, we accept that the compliance with the legal requirements of a contract which was not designated to accommodate such serious issues conflicted with the most compassionate course available."
It would seem that the "coincidence" of leave taken by several senior personnel "during some of the crucial period exacerbated the difficulties of jointly managing the resolution of the crisis".
The board said the report highlighted the inadequate procedures available to hospitals in dealing with complaints against consultants.
The report also stated that, given the length of time taken to process allegations of sexual abuse against medical practitioners, it was "quite extraordinary and unsatisfactory" that the Medical Council put a total ban on communications on their status.
It stated that the available procedures were limited and did not cover all the circumstances of the case which arose. "It would appear, however, that the chairman of the hospital management board proceeded with due regard for the rights of the consultant," the report said.